tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-91284614318489165122024-02-07T21:58:58.388-05:00Kyoto MotorsIn the post-protocol economy, Kyoto Motors looks for a way forward.Kyoto Motorshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09722522804036548328noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9128461431848916512.post-54587832374242487412022-12-16T23:10:00.001-05:002022-12-16T23:10:40.442-05:00What happened?<p> I’d like to blame it on the pandemic, and for the most part I
will, but I look back to my last blog entry (2019!), and it’s clear that
something stopped me in my tracks a few months before the Pandemic took shape. But
at this point, I don’t pretend to remember exactly what happened. I only know
that I’m glad to be back.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There are lots of things on my mind these days, and without digressing
too much, I just want to go over some of the things I expect to write about in
the next weeks ahead. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It snowed in Montreal today. I rode my newly refurbished
winter bike home from work with great enthusiasm, and look forward to the three
and a half months ahead of winter cycling. This is the foundational theme of
kyotomotors, in the sense that it is the only real way in which I know I can actively
not contribute to the problem of spewing GHG into the atmosphere on a daily
basis. Is my carbon footprint where it should be? Probably not. Some impacts
are beyond individual control. We do what we can… but interestingly enough, my
last post before my hiatus was on this very subject, and you might like to
check that out here. It seems just as relevant today as it was when I wrote it
three years ago. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Apart from the theme of biking, which I know is not for
everyone, I am inevitably going to want to talk about recent news related to
energy and money, and the future. Is there a reason why the headlines don’t
read “ENERGY CRISIS LOOMING”? Well, the answer is probably “yes,” but it’s not
because there’s not an energy crisis looming. Instead, we get breaking, er, “news”
about the promising breakthrough in fusion technology. So, I’m planning on
rambling on a bit about propaganda in the weeks ahead… Wait for it!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As an artist, I have also been watching the financialization
of the “industry” of art over the years: a high-stakes, hijinks/ hijacking of
an otherwise introspective, solemn often solitary endeavour; but when you’re a
civilisation high on fossil fuels, everybody is jumping on the bandwagon of
creativity, not to mention the museums, collectors/investors and mega-galleries.
Nero ain’t got nothin’ on this! But that’s an aside, really. Like everything nowadays,
the art world is simply wrapped up in the maelstrom that is the perpetual
growth paradigm, which is to say, as we consume the planet at breakneck speed, many
our would-be “best achievements” become distorted and grotesque, as does our
celebration of them.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, any enthusiastic discussion of art in this forum will be
dampened, as a deliberate antidote to the hype. One rule of thumb I go by, is
that, if it requires hype from the get-go, it probably hasn’t go legs to stand
on. Block-buster Museum shows and “immersive” exhibitions that re-frame
historic works for the world of attention deficit disorder consumers, will not
get a hall pass in these corridors. But I do wish to wax enthusiastically about
art here, don’t get me wrong. I’ve touched on the idea of “the work of art in
the age of the combustion engine” in the past. There is much more terrain to
explore in this thematic realm, and I will do my best to try and broach topics
not typically talked about in the art world.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ah, promises, promises…<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kyotomotors!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Where,
and how did it all start? And who really cares? I thought rather naively, back
then, that we would collectively tackle the challenges of global warming much
better than we have. I now think we have created a dark age ahead that is
unavoidable. I would like to think the themes of biking through to the future;
deconstructing the lies we tell ourselves about that future; and that of
genuine artistic endeavours, will lead to helpful discussions about how to deal
with the post-modern stress disorder that most of us suffer from in one form or
another. I certainly think embracing these themes will provide plenty of
material for discussion in the months ahead. I hope this time I have the energy
for the long haul!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>Kyoto Motorshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09722522804036548328noreply@blogger.com0Montreal, QC, Canada45.5018869 -73.5673918999999938.127760587372173 -82.35645439999999 52.876013212627832 -64.77832939999999tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9128461431848916512.post-69858122132323128572019-11-13T00:00:00.000-05:002019-11-13T00:00:02.312-05:00Year-round Cycling<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
With a rather sudden, fairly thick blanket of snow on the
ground in the second week of November, it may seem like an unlikely time to
discuss the wherefore and the how-to of bicycling, but in fact winter biking
may be the best place to start. After all, if fighting the status quo that
facilitates copious carbon emissions is at the crux of the climate debate, then
challenging well worn habits and assumptions is certainly one very good way to
proceed. If my experience of bicycling year-round for several years is any
indication, by and large, people have a whole host of assumptions about biking
in the winter that are downright inaccurate. I suspect the reactions I hear,
more often than not, have more to do with fearing that a car-oriented norm is
under attack by anything half as crazy as riding on two wheels in the worst
elements that mother nature has to throw at us.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Full disclosure: I actually do happen to consider that the
crazy ones are those of us who hop into four-thousand-pound box of steel and
plastic on wheels each and every day to move their own bodies around. To my
mind, these people are at least eligible for some sound ribbing, if not an
outright diagnosis of clinical insanity, or perhaps a healthy dose of shaming,
but let me not digress…. Suffice it to say that for me, moving under my own
steam seems so obviously normal.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Before going any further, I should also say that cars have
their place, and that cycling (let alone winter biking) is not for everyone.
But I will add that it really is far and away very appropriate for a huge
number of us who currently do not take up the practice. My favourite definition
of a motorist is “a future cyclist, who just doesn’t know it yet”.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It’s a common trope to suggest that a “war-like effort” is
required to reduce CO2 emissions in a meaningful way so as to combat climate
change collectively. While I wonder if most people who make this assertion
understand the implications of that suggestion, I would like to suggest that
recruiting an army of volunteer cyclists from the pool of everyday citizenry is
one of the easiest ways to improve the quality of life of the urban
environment. And while many objections are made about the construction cost of
retrofitting infrastructure to accommodate bicycle traffic, in the big picture,
making room for bikes is far more inherently cost effective; it’s far less
onerous than building bridges, rapid transit rails, metro tunnels,
electrification networks (all things that, yes we should be doing as well) …
After all, the lowly bicycle is a hundred and forty year old, proven
technology, relying on little maintenance when compared to almost any other
mode of transport.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p> </o:p> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So while the commonly accepted industry-driven mantra is to
wait for self-driving electric cars to come along and “improve” our lives, it’s
by no means clear that this agenda actually has anything to do with fighting
climate change with anything other than lip-service.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
With that in mind, I challenge any and all able-bodied urban
citizen to consider bicycling as their primary transport option. In some cities
this call to arms would be drowned out by the sound of engines humming and
tires rolling; in others, it may almost seem like preaching to the choir.
Either way, there’s no harm in repeating the message. The sooner our numbers
can double, and double again the better. Every bike is one less combustion
engine.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If like me, you’re faced with snow in the streets, maybe now
is the time to leap into the adventure of winter biking. If so, do so with the
best equipment and accessories you can afford – ice can be very unforgiving!<o:p></o:p></div>
<br /><br />
Kyoto Motorshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09722522804036548328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9128461431848916512.post-2105078823849454192019-11-06T00:00:00.000-05:002019-11-06T00:00:12.131-05:00Kyotomotors Revisited<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
You may never have thought to ask “what is a kyoto-motor?”
since it clearly isn’t really a “thing”, but that is exactly the question I aim
to answer with this blog over time. If a “kyoto-motor” is not an invention in
the technological sense, I like to think it represents a contribution to the re-invention
of how we think about energy. I hope to demonstrate that a “kyoto-motor” is any
method, tool or practice that puts this way of thinking to use. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The original impetus for kyotomotors was satire: what
started as a parody of the automotive industry’s use of marketing to maintain
the trance of those caught up in the lauded “love affair with the car”, has since
evolved (okay, devolved) into this marginal commentary on the problematic
nature of the collective dependence on fossil fuels. What I have come to
understand is multi-layered: that the dependence is utterly total and totally encompassing,
cannot be overstated; whether we like it or not (and it’s best not to like it
too much – or at all, if possible), fossil fuels have made everyday life what
it is today, including the obvious advantages and advances, but also a great
many of the challenges of the times – including the issue of the age known as
climate change. So, while it’s easy to appreciate fossil fuel’s place, role and
value is extremely important to put it in the context of its negative impacts –
of which there are many.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
With this in mind, it’s sure that many of us level-headed,
well-meaning people would expect action and change from governments and
business alike, and are motivated to effect, and otherwise inspire such change.
The most common manifestation of this has been through the United Nations, the
scientific community, and from a full spectrum of activists ranging from
anarchistic to corporate “green”. For more than 20 years, this tail has tried
to wag the dog of global industrial civilisation with a sadly minimal degree of
success, when measured against annual global emissions and consumption of fossil
fuels, which continues to rise: Looking ahead to 2020, we as a planetary
species, are set to burn through another 35 billion (that’s like million with a
“b”) barrels of oil – not to mention coal, and natural gas and the many other
industrial sources of GHGs such as livestock.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So, while the political pressure coming from this line of
attack is important and necessary, it is not wholly effective when left alone
to fight this colossal battle against the inertia of the global industrial
project. As another line of attack, I’d like to suggest that a “kyotomotors
culture” could play a significant role in eroding the foundations of that project,
and could allow for a sea-change that will make it culturally acceptable to not
burn fossil fuels at every turn. This is the approach that is sadly missing in
a world where activists vote for the ruling party, and hop onto
inter-continental flights several times a year, and otherwise consume above their weight. As an alternative, a
kyotomotors approach is one that leads by example – assuming that, no matter
how modest, example is the stuff of leadership, and is potentially more effective
than what has passed for action until now. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the upcoming posts, I will explore the most appropriate
technologies that have the greatest potential for reducing one’s carbon
footprint, starting with the most obvious of the “kyoto-motors” – my personal favourite,
the bicycle.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />Kyoto Motorshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09722522804036548328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9128461431848916512.post-81375723030503667132019-10-30T00:00:00.000-04:002019-10-30T20:21:48.523-04:00More or Less cynical?<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: 35.45pt; margin-right: 56.9pt; margin-top: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: 56.9pt;">
Having a look at the recent
election numbers from another point of view, I thought I’d try a “glass half
full” interpretation of our current situation. With 33% of the popular vote
going to the Liberals, and another 31% going against the Conservative camp, we
have almost a two thirds majority of support for at least, er, lip-service. Donning
my less-cynical hat, I suppose I’ll agree that it's a step in the right
direction...<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: 56.9pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: 56.9pt;">
The devil-in-the-details would
be the expectations behind the numbers. What hopes are pinned to the Liberal
plan, if not having our collective cake and eating it too? And what fantasies
are projected via GND but promises of a grandiose and sweeping technological
shift toward perfect balance in short order? As fantasies these narratives may
keep us going psychologically, but at the end of the day, if you eat your cake,
you no longer have it to behold. If we don’t vote for a GND, there’s no knowing
what even a mere attempt at that kind of shift will look like.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: 56.9pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: 56.9pt;">
If only someone could answer
what the actual future is likely to have in store for us…<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: 56.9pt;">
Clearly a “Green New Deal” or
equivalent, is not on the books since that’s not in the Liberal’s platform. Clearly
also, an approach to maintain national unity will trump all sorts of other
ideals, leading to compromises that will leave regions in various states of
disgruntlement, and environmentalists especially, fuming on the back-burner. If
the minority government lasts four years, my call is that Canadians will
continue to lead the world in carbon emissions per-capita – if not surpassed by
the Americans south of the border who will also be too busy with unity politics
to care very much about their emissions. Besides, they’ll be deep into the last
hurrah of fracking for oil and gas – itself a huge source of carbon emissions. Will
the American people turn their backs on both Trump and the Dems to vote Green? My
guess is not a chance.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: 56.9pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: 56.9pt;">
So, there are my predictions
based on our recent (predictable) election results, and projecting similar (if
not worse) results in the 2020 US elections. Will the green activist camp
continue growing over that time? Let’s hope so. But the next big push may not
come until after another four years of status quo, when the campaigning ramps up
again.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: 56.9pt;">
The only other course of action
remains the one area where each of us has the most control over our share of CO<sub>2</sub>
emissions, and that’s our own lifestyles. Changes on this front may not affect
the lion’s share of emissions, but it may be all that actually gets done…<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />Kyoto Motorshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09722522804036548328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9128461431848916512.post-4154883804806256392019-10-23T00:00:00.000-04:002019-10-23T00:00:06.087-04:00Green Inaction<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
There you have it, people: Canada has voted, and after the
urgency of climate change seemed to have captured the imagination of a nation,
we have settled instead for the party of lip service. Lumping together the one
third of voters apparently happy with the Liberals with another third supporting
the Conservatives, brings us a total of 67.5% of the population who voted for
the status quo or worse. But what do you expect from Canadians? We are, after
all, the world leaders in per-capita carbon emissions. Surely with that status
come a whole host of bad habits, and bad habits are usually the hardest to give
up.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Our collective stance on the Climate Change issue can be
summed up by the photo-op that the prime minister went after when Greta
Thunberg was in Montreal. Some more shrewd observers pointed out that it
amounted to the leadership of the nation protesting against itself. Indeed, the
whole problem of the success of the movement is that it is not a
counter-culture. Much to the contrary, the movement is such a mainstream, even
corporate phenomenon, that it is perfectly natural for the leader of the
country with the worst per capita emissions on record, to rub shoulders with
the poster child for the “revolution”. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Thunberg may deliver a good speech, with biting criticism,
but if that discourse is co-opted by leaders she would otherwise be attacking,
the whole ritual of protest becomes something of a charade. It then becomes merely
a mechanism by which politicians leverage power. It’s an effective device for a
populace that wants to hear promises that can never be kept. The election
results confirm this; or worse still: maybe people really just don’t care as
much as they pretend to with their forays into “climate activism”.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For the record, I think the most effective, meaningful
action would come first in the form of imposed limits on extravagance –
definition of which to be discussed, but not all that hard to imagine: the
wealthiest can stand to sacrifice the most without feeling anything like the
pinch that already has a hold on the struggling masses around the world.
Instead, what we’ll be treated to is more likely to be forms of austerity
affecting the lower-middle and working classes, or worse: hand-waving,
scapegoating, foot-dragging and more lip-service.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Luckily – outside of the official, political sphere, there
is, and always has been a directly effective way to reduce carbon emissions,
and that is on an entirely personal level, to not burn fossil fuels; to avoid
doing so as much as possible, and to think twice about alternatives whenever
you do… It may not seem like the answer that will save the world because it’s
not, and it won’t – at least not on a dime. But this is how new habits are
formed. Habits of thought are especially useful if they translate into habits
of action – or if you will, habits of inaction. After all, if the carbon we
release into the atmosphere is a by-product of economic activity (consumerism)
we might simply need to dial some of that back. Maybe it’s a question of not
booking that next flight, or of not upgrading that flat-screen TV, or simply
not turning the key in that ignition. Ask yourself what else could be done instead?
That’s when new habits may just emerge. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If there is a real sea-change afoot, it’s going to be a
question of will, and of good will: a cultural transformation that sheds
outdated habits of thought and embraces new measures of success. A combination
of leading by example, making do, and doing what you can.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It’s like Miles Davis said to John Coltrane:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: 35.45pt; margin-right: 56.9pt; margin-top: 0cm;">
"Try taking the fucking horn out of your
mouth."<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />Kyoto Motorshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09722522804036548328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9128461431848916512.post-65972273498827639452019-10-16T09:06:00.001-04:002019-10-16T17:44:59.600-04:00Did Somebody Say "De-growth"?<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #eeeeee;">Surprisingly, though somewhat
under the radar, the issue of something called “de-growth” came up during
Canada’s recent English language debate, where a citizen asked about it in the
context of ecological strain due to climate change – suggesting, I think, quite
rightly, that it was an appropriate response to the problem. Unsurprisingly, even
Elisabeth May’s response was all about economic “transition” intended to steer
well clear of anything like economic contraction, and unlike the sound of “de-growth”
hers is a palatable proposition. In other words, she’s careful to say what
people want to hear.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #eeeeee;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #eeeeee;">If sacrifice is the taboo for
the individual consumer in the age of abundance, “de-growth” is its equivalent
in the economic and financial spheres of contemporary life. Any politician knows
that to conjure either one in today’s culture of perpetual progress, is
tantamount to career suicide. It’s as though growth is equated with all things
good, and its opposite is therefore evil. It’s taken as a given.
Non-negotiable. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #eeeeee;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #eeeeee;">The only problem is that
perpetual growth on a finite planet is a physical impossibility, and this
inconvenient truth is at the heart of our ineffectual responses to climate
change, from Al Gore to the Paris Agreement, and (dare I say) to Greta Thunberg.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #eeeeee;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #eeeeee;">Anyone familiar with the basics
of the Climate Change movement/debate, has heard about emissions targets,
usually expressed in terms of percentages below annual output of a given year
(1990 or 2005 are common). Our current aim is for what is referred to as the
“Paris targets”, but they cannot be defined succinctly, because they will be
decided upon differently by each participating country – which is fair, but it’s
also a great way to ensure many players will drag their feet.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #eeeeee;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #eeeeee;">Summit after summit (we’re up to
“COP25” now) we have moved the goalposts in this game of climate action,
dragged our feet in ratifying, and have simply failed to meet targets. Before Paris
we spoke of Copenhagen, and Cancun; before that of Rio, and originally of Kyoto
– we are a quarter of a century into Climate action, and by and large the
mechanisms for implementation and enforcement have been largely toothless,
given that overall emissions globally have gone up year after year. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #eeeeee;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVj3nSLnvmeurvJSO8B6hL7Q_WZusJJazAYAvYDcXB1CiXI_gQRBcg5INsbtCnFHfhDn0KMTmxnSlNNLLbxAzvn-SLH_4OSJxrKiaMsqOAFhKVoZVHwW9TCvMvV24X5y1bKJjf2pi8L6E/s1600/paris.targets.graph.2017.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="color: #eeeeee;"><img border="0" data-original-height="217" data-original-width="410" height="169" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVj3nSLnvmeurvJSO8B6hL7Q_WZusJJazAYAvYDcXB1CiXI_gQRBcg5INsbtCnFHfhDn0KMTmxnSlNNLLbxAzvn-SLH_4OSJxrKiaMsqOAFhKVoZVHwW9TCvMvV24X5y1bKJjf2pi8L6E/s320/paris.targets.graph.2017.jpg" width="320" /></span></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #eeeeee;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #eeeeee;"><span style="color: #002060; mso-no-proof: yes;"><v:shapetype coordsize="21600,21600" filled="f" id="_x0000_t75" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter">
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0">
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0">
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1">
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2">
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth">
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight">
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1">
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2">
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth">
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0">
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight">
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0">
</v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:formulas>
<v:path gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect" o:extrusionok="f">
<o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit">
</o:lock></v:path></v:stroke></v:shapetype><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_1" o:spid="_x0000_i1025" style="height: 162.75pt; mso-wrap-style: square; visibility: visible; width: 307.5pt;" type="#_x0000_t75">
<v:imagedata o:title="" src="file:///C:/Users/macle/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.jpg">
</v:imagedata></v:shape></span><span style="color: #002060;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #eeeeee;"><a href="https://www.dw.com/en/climate-change-world-way-off-track-on-paris-accord-goals/a-41173220"><span style="color: #002060;">https://www.dw.com/en/climate-change-world-way-off-track-on-paris-accord-goals/a-41173220</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #eeeeee;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #eeeeee;">The underlying reason for that
is not too difficult to explain, and it speaks to the allergy to sacrifice I’ve
alluding to in recent posts. But I think it’s helpful to look at the roots of
the matter from a slightly different angle, which speaks to our economic model
for prosperity, and our allergy to “de-growth”, or contraction.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #eeeeee;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #eeeeee;">In our current system of
creating wealth through industrial production, energy has always been the key
ingredient: coal, oil, and gas leading the way. Returns on investment have
always been underpinned by these historically negligible costs that bear
enormous returns in terms of the ability to do work. The net effect is that growth
is by definition coupled to CO<span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">2</span> emissions. If we start talking about
cutting emissions, we are by definition speaking of cutting energy use, and therefore
of bringing the notion of “de-growth” into the conversation. But in true “have
our cake and eat it too” form, we have tried to insist that growth remains on
the table. So long as it does, the question of climate change will remain a
predicament, from which there is no real escape, and not a problem that can be
solved via practicable measures. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #eeeeee;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #eeeeee;">Now of course, the extent to
which some renewable sources of electricity can alter this equation is definitely
part of the more sane approaches to the challenges of the near future. But
having unreal expectations of growth sustained by “renewables” is not helpful. Folding
de-growth into the recipe offers a whole new area in which gains can be made. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #eeeeee;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #eeeeee;">I don’t know if people can get
their heads around what de-growth actually means. I’m not even sure I know what
that would look like globally in twenty to fifty years. It certainly should not
simply be a matter of have-nots of the world going with even less access to the
amenities of modern life – although that certainly is the risk, given our track
record of concentrating wealth in the hands of the few. By opting for a
de-growth path, we would be entering into uncharted territory, but then again,
by wading into the deep waters of climate change, we are already doing that. We
may now have to choose between the lesser of two evils. Either way, one of the
best things to do now, is to embrace a low carbon lifestyle and be prepared for
new ways of thinking about energy. It’s a theme I aim to explore further here
at Kyotomotors.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />Kyoto Motorshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09722522804036548328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9128461431848916512.post-81384448189170819802019-10-09T00:00:00.000-04:002019-10-09T07:55:55.801-04:00Why on Earth Sacrifice?<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
As alluded to previously, the tendency of ours to accept
lip-service on climate change (or its more robust cousin, the collective fantasy
of a utopic green state) has roots in our collective allergy to sacrifice.
Sacrifice is what previous generations did. Grandparents who survived the Great
Depression, did so at great cost to themselves. Immigrants worked like hell so
their kids and grand-kids could have it good. During WWII, sacrifice was the
order of the day in so many respects – a great many made the “ultimate
sacrifice”. But since then, sacrifice has been shunned from the dominant
narrative of progress that we have enjoyed in the West. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
You could argue this was done in good faith, and with good
reason, to the extent that we didn’t know any better. The sheer abundance achieved
by post-war industrial production is astounding to be sure. [So much more so it
would have been, had humans worked a little harder at spreading the wealth
about more equitably – but that’s another discussion.] However, as loud as the
warning bells are today, they only echo early warnings that go back almost fifty
years, when the alternative economic scene was pointing out that there are necessarily
limits to industrial growth on a finite planet. The main limit coming into play
these days is that of the biosphere’s ability to absorb the waste we spew into
the air as though it were an open sewer. And while the health of our oceans is
failing – signalling an unacceptable level of saturation, it is the level of CO<sub>2</sub>
in the atmosphere that is proving to be the primary limiting factor moving forward.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Forty years ago environmentalism enjoyed its first heyday,
but instead of pushing for a transition to a nascent alternative energy economy
(while we still had lots of time and plenty of fossil fuels to build the
necessary infrastructure), we doubled down on the oil and gas project – despite
(or because of) new supply issues that emerged after the United States’
continental supply of conventional crude peaked in the early seventies. The results?
Reaganomics opened up the Alaskan wilderness to oil production, the Thatcherites
approved North Sea operations, and we in the West were able to pretend there
were no limits for another two decades. Gradually this cheap oil culture
spawned the infamous SUVs of the nineties and early 2000s. “Global Warming” was
only just gaining traction in the collective consciousness. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
More recently, “peak oil” (for a time, at least) came into
common parlance as well. In the early 2000s it became apparent to anyone paying
attention (including the Pentagon, btw) that the cheap and easy conventional
oil supply was starting to wane world wide. Prices climbed and even spiked, and
although few people in the political sphere broached the subject of peak oil
(never mind the MSM), the economics of peak oil allowed for new, more expensive
oil production to come on line. This is why Canada’s tar sands can now pretend
to make economic sense, and similarly, south of the border, it’s the reason
that the US has been able to double-down once again and frack their way forward:
shale oil production in the last seven years has literally doubled their
otherwise dwindling output, even breaking new records in annual output. Some
critics try to claim this disproves the “peak oil” forecast, but in fact it
only confirms it: “peak oil theory” was only ever about conventional oil –
besides, new forecasts for fracked oil are not immune to the simple premise
that ultimately, finite supplies of any oil will always peak and deplete – but that
too is another story.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
From a Climate change perspective, the additional supply of
some 8 million barrels of fracked oil per day is a disaster – especially when
you consider the fracking process releases copious amounts of methane directly into
the atmosphere. Similarly, the tar sands operations contribute enormously to Canadians’
world leading GHG per-capita emissions. So, while “running out” of conventional
oil might have seemed to promise a reduction in pollution, it turns out that we
have plenty of the <i>even dirtier</i> stuff to tear through before supply
becomes an issue. So now it becomes a matter of will. Can we choose to not burn
it? To leave it in the ground… <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Maybe that’s too much sacrifice for most?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
On the other hand, if the huge numbers of protesters we’ve
seen in the streets across the country (and around the world) represent a truly
determined population of environmentally motivated activists, then perhaps we <i>can</i>
start talking about sacrifice. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I contend that the results of this next federal election
here in Canada will be a good indicator as to just how sincere, and how deep
the current environmental movement actually is. Only if a majority of Canadians
turn their back on the two front-runners, can we start to take ourselves
seriously as a country that wants to make an ecological difference and lead by
example. Any other choice means we are asking to have our cake and eat it too.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />Kyoto Motorshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09722522804036548328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9128461431848916512.post-30746302497674591342019-10-02T08:05:00.000-04:002019-10-02T08:05:58.084-04:00Green New Deals<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
If you’re a Canadian, and you’ve been satisfied with the
Liberal and Conservative governments’ records on Climate Change since the Kyoto
Protocol marked the beginning of the present era in 1997, you’d probably be
happy to vote for one or the other party again, because it’s pretty much
guaranteed you’ll get more of the same: toothless policy, broken promises, mere
lip-service and outright lies. If you’re not satisfied with more of the same-old,
same-old, you’re maybe looking for someone else to vote for – if you’re not
completely fed up with the whole system by now, and have dropped out of the simulacrum-democracy
we maintain… <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But I will presume that you are one of the millions who
appear to be answering the latest rallying cries we are hearing from the likes
of Greta Thunberg, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, on the international stage, or,
here at home, party leaders such as Elizabeth May or Jagmeet Singh – to name but
a few. There does seem to be a growing consensus that a) the need for action is
urgent, and a burgeoning belief that b) real changes are afoot. As someone who
is on the record for having come to this first conclusion more than twelve
years ago, I feel the need to express some skepticism about the second assertion
– despite my own hopes and wishes. Twelve years ago, as I mentioned last week,
there was a similar groundswell of protest against inaction regarding the very
same crisis.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Here are some of my observations of that bandwagon of yore,
and the trends that emerged since:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
</div>
<ul>
<li><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->People who insist that government regulate the
problem away, saying that corporations and big industry have to be brought into
line, often use this as an excuse to wait, and in the meantime take very action
themselves</li>
<li><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->People who do make and have made changes and
sacrifices, see what little effect their example has on the greater community,
and become discouraged, and/or cynical – sometimes ceasing to practice what
they preach.</li>
<li><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Corporations use economic bribery to persuade people
and governments to back down on their insistence for change.</li>
<li><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Activists and scientists have become very good at
analysing the problems, criss-crossing the globe to conferences and summits,
making declarations and recommendations, targets etc.; Having become experts at
studying and recommending, this sub-class of bureaucrats cease to be activists.</li>
<li><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Politicians master lip-service, pass toothless
laws and fail to meet targets – as mentioned at the outset.</li>
<li><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Gains made with moderate, well-intentioned attempts
to increase alt-energy output have barely kept pace with global increases in
energy consumption, putting no dent into fossil fuel numbers. In fact, overall
emissions keep going up.</li>
<li><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Humans burn 90 million barrels of oil a day,
about a quarter of which is consumed by 5% of the (affluent) population – which
includes Canada</li>
</ul>
<!--[if !supportLists]--><o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
How do we ensure we don’t fall into the same patterns moving
forward?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
One favourite response is what has been presented as the “Green
New Deal” which, in its American form, is both sweeping and progressive, and is
verging on utopic: it promises to achieve a zero-carbon economy within ten
years, and in doing so, provide social justice all around. Who can say no to
that? (yes, some people will say no to that, but no, were not going to go there
just now).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #0070c0;">“…to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a
fair and just transition for all communities and workers; <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(B) to create millions of good, high-wage <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security
for all people of the United States; (C) to invest in the infrastructure and industry
of the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century; (D)
to secure for all people of the United States for generations to come— (i)
clean air and water; (ii) climate and community resiliency; (iii) healthy food;
(iv) access to nature; and (v) a sustainable environment; and (E) to promote
justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing
historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant
communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the
poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities,
and youth (referred to in this resolution as ‘‘frontline and vulnerable communities’’);
(2) the goals described in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph (1)
(referred to in this resolution as the ‘‘Green New Deal goals’’) should be
accomplished through a 10-year national mobilization (referred to in this
resolution as the ‘‘Green New Deal mobilization’’)…”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution%20on%20a%20Green%20New%20Deal.pdf">https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution%20on%20a%20Green%20New%20Deal.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Again, I have been arguing for urgent, even drastic, sweeping
measures for these past twelve years, and so, I do agree that a Green New Deal of
policies is very attractive, but I have to object to the fantasies that are used
to sell the program. Doesn’t a simple ten years that will usher in an ideal
world not sound a little too good to be true?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Apart from wondering how a “GND” might avoid the pitfalls
listed above, there are some serious questions to be asked regarding the plans’
feasibility, in energy terms. Or, as is cogently observed by Andrew Nikiforuk <a href="https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-08-28/the-green-new-deal-battles-business-as-usual-both-will-doom-us/">https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-08-28/the-green-new-deal-battles-business-as-usual-both-will-doom-us/</a>
, the GND proponents (just like the delusional business-as-usual camp) may well
be “energy-illiterate”. He makes the argument that any plan that aims to run
the current, accepted “happy-motoring” techno-society on strictly green energy
is dreaming wildly. I would add that it’s because we have a simple “have the
cake and eat it too” mentality when it comes to our energy-intensive,
consumptive lifestyle. We want to believe that all our current habits and
privileges can continue unchanged on the renewable energy plan. Politics being
what it is, that’s the only way we tend to sell it. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The fight against Climate change has always been faced with
a conundrum: It is an abundance issue, and as we all do enjoy abundance – even if
it is shared in a pathetically unequal manner – our problem at hand (CO<sub>2</sub>)
is in a sense, just another aspect of exactly what we cherish and strive for. Therefore,
the fight has always required some measure of sacrifice, yet sacrifice hasn’t
been part of our vocabulary in the climate discussion. Probably due to the
traumas of the early 20 Century, we have become allergic to the notion of
sacrifice, but until we embrace it, we may only ever get lip-service on climate
change …and rising temperatures.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<br /></div>
Kyoto Motorshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09722522804036548328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9128461431848916512.post-54365000201682350272019-09-24T22:22:00.001-04:002019-09-24T22:34:34.024-04:00From Gore to Greta<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
A lot can happen in the world of climate change activism in
the span of 12 years. I remember 2007 as the year when Al Gore was making the
rounds and public awareness of the issues was seemingly at a peak. Soon after,
Bush the Second, the Texan in the White house, was replaced by that beacon of hope, Barack Obama, and progressive politics were afoot – except that a bunch of shit had just hit the fan.
Climate change took a back seat in the years that followed the housing crisis
and the financial meltdown of 2008. To be fair, during those years, at least we were treated to
progressive lip-service on the matter: Climate summits were held in
various cosmopolitan centres every few years, where toothless laws and soft
targets were the order of the day. Meanwhile, in the U.S., the fracking industry slowly
gathered steam in attempt to mitigate the annoying effects of Peak Oil, which
nobody really wanted to talk about out in the open. Later, on the political
front, the Democrats succeeded in losing spectacularly – and, even if
we can’t agree on why Donald Trump came out on top, we all know that there's a big ol' climate change denier the
one in the White House at the moment. And so, yeah, a lot can happen in twelve
years; a whole lot of inaction on climate change has taken place in that
time. And carbon emissions have kept going up every year.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now, the poster child of the cause is a teenager from Sweden.
At first glance, Greta Thunberg is no Al Gore, and that’s why you might see her
as a breath of fresh air. Gore, after all, was not exactly an exemplary
environmentalist who would lead by example. His jet-setting motorcade kind of
set him apart on that count. Thunberg is a little more “practice what you
preach” in her approach, which is sorely lacking in the privileged circles of
most environmentalist leaders. However, if you scratch the surface of this
media-darling's public image, as some critics have, she has perhaps already been
co-opted by the ultra-rich elite who (like Gore) often have a “do as I say, not as I do”
approach to the cause. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It remains to be
seen if she can set herself apart from the hypocrites who have otherwise taken
over climate activism. If she does, will the media do its best to drop her?
Ultimately, since we are still operating in the context of democracy, the most
important question is whether there is a truly new wave of young protesters
ready to rise up and demand real change? Or will her message be massaged free
of meaning by a cynical media who still write the propaganda-du-jour for the
establishment?<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Clearly, for now at least, the masses are mobilising, and
large numbers of protesters are convening once again – and for good reason: so
much more really ought to be done to soften the blow of climate change in the immediate future, not to mention the next hundred years. But
what isn’t clear is with what expectations does Greta lead the charge? And with
what expectations to the masses convene?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It’s an important question, because anger, if blind, can be
easily duped. Which is why next week I’ll be discussing “Green New Deals”.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />Kyoto Motorshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09722522804036548328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9128461431848916512.post-85402286117874305722015-08-14T12:16:00.001-04:002015-08-14T12:16:55.784-04:00Promises, Promises… and (dis-)Ability?<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Garamond;">[or </span><span style="font-family: Garamond;"><i>Money and Energy</i>]</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: Garamond;">As noted in my previous post, Science has long
defined energy as “the ability to do useful work”. Defining money, on the other
hand is not necessarily as easily agreed upon, so what follows in this overdue
entry at Kyotomotors, risks being over-simplified, if not contentious. But
simplicity is actually my objective here. I aim to paint the backdrop of
contemporary political and economic theatre with a very broad brush. To do so,
I have settled on the definition of money as “the promise to do work.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: Garamond;">With these two definitions, it’s the notion of
work that allows us to understand the link between money and energy. What
follows, I believe, is a better understanding as to why the headlines these
days have so much to do with debt, default, and financial crises. The
explanation has everything to do with energy, which, in a global industrial
civilisation, translates as having to do with petroleum and other fossil fuels.
And this, in turn, explains why I have chosen this topic to begin with. It just
so happens that the health of our economy is an energy issue, which means that
the Kyotomotors alternatives for daily transport represent one of the more sane
responses not just to the spectre of global warming, but also to the
difficulties associated with widespread economic contraction, which is here to
stay, if you hadn’t noticed…<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: Garamond;">Again, simplicity is my stated goal, so I’m not
going to go into protracted detail about theories surrounding money as debt and
industrial capitalism’s capacity to diversify and nurture specialization, which
in turn begets ever more complex systems that are woven into the entire system.
There’s a lot of interesting material on these subjects, and I encourage my
readers to explore them [try Gail Tverberg <a href="https://www.blogger.com/[%20http://ourfiniteworld.com/oil-supply-limits-and-the-continuing-financial-crisis/" target="_blank">here</a> & <a href="http://ourfiniteworld.com/2015/08/10/how-economic-growth-fails/" target="_blank">here</a> for starters]. For the purposes of this discussion, I want to simply step back and confirm the observation that the law of
diminishing returns, which states that after a tipping point of sorts, for
every new layer of complexity, the costs of
maintaining complexity outweigh the benefits. This is the basic dynamic
in what William Catton observed in <i><a href="http://dieoff.org/page15.htm" target="_blank">Overshoot</a> </i>[or, try a more legible <a href="http://www.resilience.org/stories/2005-03-20/industrialization-prelude-collapse" target="_blank">version</a>] – the period in which business as usual overinvests in everything
unsustainable because there’s no negative feedback to shut down the system.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: Garamond;">Only one other technical matter need be touched on
here, and that’s the question of <a href="http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3586" target="_blank">peak oil</a>. I have gone on at length about the
phenomenon, and how easily misunderstood and misrepresented the facts are. But
I am by no means the authority on the subject. Instead, I urge you to read the
<a href="http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf" target="_blank">Hirsch Report </a>– drafted for the benefit of the Pentagon. And for some perspective on the matter, try <a href="http://www.resilience.org/stories/2006-08-22/aspo-5-robert-hirsch-scares-me-out-my-wits%E2%80%A6" target="_blank">Rob Hopkins</a>, <a href="http://www.resilience.org/stories/2010-11-21/there-will-be-fuel-open-letter-new-york-times" target="_blank">David Hughes</a>, <a href="http://www.resilience.org/author-detail/1007654-richard-heinberg" target="_blank">Richard Heinberg</a> as well as <a href="http://www.resilience.org/author-detail/1151302-colin-j-campbell" target="_blank">Colin Campbell</a> -- all worth reading if you want to get into it. In short, peak oil is the point
at which the world can no longer count on ever increasing supplies of
petroleum. The peak of conventional crude is said to have already taken place
in 2005-2006. We are now in the period of making up the shortfall with much
more difficult (expensive) oil. Tar sands, deep-water and fracked oil are the
poster-children of this phase. These sources are more expensive because they
require enormous amounts of energy to get a diminished energy return at the end
of the day. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: Garamond;">The most important aspect of all this, for the
purposes of my thesis here, is that as a society, we are faced with a diminishing
ability to do work, when measured in simple units of energy. And it’s our
inability to make good on promises that affect the economic, and financial
realms.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: Garamond;">I know this is where the cacophony of protest
comes in. But before you throw up your arms and shout something about
technology and efficiency, just have a look at two basic truths that have become
features of industrial society from the get-go: The first is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White%27s_law" target="_blank">White’s Law</a>, which states that the complexity of a system is directly proportional to the
amount of energy that flows through that system. The second is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox" target="_blank">Jevons Paradox</a>, which states that increases in the efficiency of the use of an energy source
results in net increase in the use of that energy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: Garamond;">While you chew on that, please allow me to
proceed, if I may…<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: Garamond;">Another key element in the current energy
situation right now is price volatility. Unpredictability is the order of the
day, which is largely due to the complexity, and the uneven nature of the
resource, by which I mean high-cost sources are trying to compete with still
low-cost sources in places like <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Saudi
Arabia</st1:place></st1:country-region>. So while the fracking and tar-sands
operations have been impressive in terms of sheer volume, the intense costs of
doing business puts much of the capital on ice whenever the price of a barrel
of oil takes a nose-dive…<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: Garamond;">So, if the supply of energy is slowly shifting
from expansion to contraction, what does that mean for the money side of the
equation? What I am suggesting – and I’m by no means the first one to make this
connection – the financial crises and general economic downturn has everything
to do with a diminished ability to do work. After all, every promise to do work
(returning to my initial definition) has to be backed with the eventual ability
to do work. To make matters worse, our ability to make promises has not diminished
in step with the energy supply, which is why we hear so much about un-payable
debt these days.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: Garamond;">All money is borrowed into existence, and
necessarily backed by industrial society’s ability to do work. Growing debt can
be theoretically tolerated in the face of an expanding energy supply, since
increases in energy can fulfill the promises made. Indeed, the history of
industrial development is a testament to the interdependence of capital and
energy, when viewed as two aspects of the work that goes into our collective
accomplishments (and failures). But if on the one hand, the supply of petroleum
(and other fossil fuels) is ruled by the earth’s very nature, and is
non-renewable, on the other hand, debt (money) is a social construct and can
theoretically be created out of thin air, with no apparent limit whatsoever. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: Garamond;">Just as nearly every kid is likely to dream up the
invention of a perpetual motion machine as a solution to energy woes, most kids
respond to the problem of running out of money by suggesting a simple trip to
the bank, or better still, to the printing press. Sadly, that has been the
solution that the grown-ups at the helm of industrial finance have been
resorting to for a number of years now. With the absence of a real-life
perpetual motion machine, however, this child’s play is as dangerous as playing
in traffic. That’s because debts eventually have to be settled, and if there is
no ability to make good on a promise, well then things just get messy. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: Garamond;">Things get particularly messy when the creation of
debt goes into overdrive as a solution to the contraction of the economy, that
rears it head at every turn. But the existence of more cash does nothing to
expand the amount of petroleum at our disposal, despite all the theorising to
the contrary. For example, Stephen Harper’s dream (and lie) is that the <st1:place w:st="on">Athabasca</st1:place> tar-sands represents a promising ability to make
up the shortfall in energy. But it has
proved to be anything but a resilient industry, and is choking on a crisis of
capital formation. He has had his kick at the can, and the experiment is a
failure. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: Garamond;">But I pity his successor, who will inherit a
minefield of a political/economic landscape. And since all would-be successors
are allergic to the notion of contraction as the new normal, most purported
solutions will be certain to make economic matters worse still.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: Garamond;">Only once the contraction of energy supply is
acknowledged, and the truly new economic landscape before us is perceived for
what it is, can we advance with both an energy policy and the fiscal wherewithal
to deal with the reality of the 21<sup>st</sup> century.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Kyoto Motorshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09722522804036548328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9128461431848916512.post-20461555839648190102015-02-12T11:14:00.004-05:002015-02-12T11:14:35.976-05:00The Dream of Free Energy<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua'; font-size: 11pt; text-align: justify;">As a follow-up
to last month’s satirical entry here at Kyotomotors on the fantasy for free
energy, I thought I’d offer some further reflection as to why I suspect we tend
to believe that free energy is a realistic objective, despite what science
tells us. Somewhat paradoxically I’d like to add to that train of thought, an
explanation as to why I actually consider that there is good reason to believe
perpetual motion will be at our disposal in the future.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 11.0pt;">But let’s start
at the beginning.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Like the
protagonist in my satire from last month, when I was young,<span style="color: #999999;"> </span>I convinced myself at one point that I had
invented perpetual motion. I was hopeful that it could save my parents a whole
lot of money, if we could only convert our Plymouth Fury according to my
specifications. What happened next I don’t recall exactly, but needless to say,
my invention never quite made it off the drawing board, even though, to the
twelve-year old mind, it involved the seemingly air-tight logic of cause and
effect<span style="color: #999999;"> </span>where the forward motion of the car would
capture wind power, and in turn, power the forward motion of the car! <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 11.0pt;">It wasn’t until
high-school physics class that I learned about entropy, and why the invention
would never work. The truth of the matter is summed up in the second law of
thermodynamics, which essentially states that (in this case kinetic) energy eventually
dissipates across the board, and that my invention, no matter how
well-intentioned, or well-engineered, would inevitably come to a stand-still. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 11.0pt;">It turns out
that I, and the countless other young would-be inventors were not the first to
dream of free-energy machines, but rather, we were participating in a fantasy
that goes back at least four hundred years, when inventors were thinking of how
best to grind their corn.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Work, work, work…<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 11.0pt;">I’ve always
found it curious that Science, in all its abstract and theoretical
magnificence, defines energy as “the ability to do work”. It’s a definition so
rooted in the real world of material things and human needs that it seems
almost out of place next to theories of space time continuums and
multiplicities of dimensions. To be sure, science’s cousin, technology has
ensured that the former’s discoveries have been doing useful work for a long
time now. I suppose ever since humans have made things to do work for them,
we’ve extrapolated with the Faustian dream of not having to do any work
ourselves whatsoever. From a purely lazy point of view, it seems reasonable to
dream of free energy. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Similarly, from
a business standpoint, where labour is expensive, and energy costs are on the
rise, the incentive is there to come up with the holy grail of thermodynamics:
perpetual motion.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 11.0pt;">In actual fact,
we have had to settle for the next best thing, which is to say, we’ve come pretty
close. I’d even go so far as to say we’ve been experiencing the illusion of
free energy for at least a couple of generations now. I’m not talking about
high-tech megaprojects like nuclear energy, which never lived up to the promise
of being too cheap to meter, nor the perpetually-beyond-reach technology of
nuclear fusion, (with its legacy price tag already spent, it can never be free).
No, I am talking about an invention that came along quite some time ago, and
has transformed the present civilisation so astoundingly by delivering
amplified energy to the masses with the turn of a key.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Okay, so I’m
simplifying here, but as you’ve probably guessed I’m talking about that regular
object of extensive scrutiny here at Kyotomotors: the combustion engine. And of
course I’m not just talking about the personal car, here: more broadly, I’m
talking petroleum. Considering the present high price of gasoline (which
despite the recent plunge, is still pretty high in historical context), most
readers would probably protest at this statement. But take a step back and
consider the bigger picture: have a look at the Twentieth Century, and you’ll
see the story of cheap and abundant and accessible energy for pretty much all
of the West, and even much of the developing world where industry has made its
inroads on the path toward globalisation of the modern economy.</span><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxK8hXDBWzYA53j9pHccpbTR3iWLetNt7UaAjyVvZHfNaKnZiF6OVjSTH4sQ6Uw7zK3OWw8xUZoLH1qqDiLhlP2-Pf9yXLB_dDvhv5M9DPpTlBk6N1LhTbfhso7acylEsJ8HuKNasgRDA/s1600/Ford-Assembly.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxK8hXDBWzYA53j9pHccpbTR3iWLetNt7UaAjyVvZHfNaKnZiF6OVjSTH4sQ6Uw7zK3OWw8xUZoLH1qqDiLhlP2-Pf9yXLB_dDvhv5M9DPpTlBk6N1LhTbfhso7acylEsJ8HuKNasgRDA/s1600/Ford-Assembly.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Think of the few
short decades from the time of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benz_Patent-Motorwagen" target="_blank">first long distance automobile trip</a> in 1888, to the business model and
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_line" target="_blank">assembly line production</a> by Henry Ford in 1913</span><span style="font-size: 11pt;">, to the ramping-up of
production in the post war era. Sure there were a few kinks, and quite a lot of
room for improvement, but the basic technology, (and more importantly the
nature of the energy source) was rapidly perfected, and profoundly
unprecedented.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Unlike
subsequent attempts, such as nuclear fusion, and even nuclear fission, not to
mention the suite of green technologies from hydrogen fuel cells to PV solar,
the combustion engine was never anything like “rocket science”. From the start,
there was an immediate return on investments, and a widespread suite of
supporting technologies emerged: Mechanics and gas stations, highways and
drive-thrus all cropped up in lock-step with the production of crude oil.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Never before was
the ability to do work so amplified, and so accessible – as in, available to
just about any working participant in the modern economy. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 11.0pt;">The phenomenon
can be measured in terms of Energy Returned on Energy Invested; it can be
described metaphorically in terms of harnessing “horse-power”(an industry
standard) , or as some commentators have chosen to do, in terms of having
“energy slaves” at your disposal. No matter how you slice it, gasoline’s “bang
for the buck” is beyond considerable; it’s mind blowing. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 11.0pt;">It’s as close as
we’ll ever come to having free energy. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 11.0pt;">But I should
qualify this last statement, for it is only true if your idea of free energy is
trapped by an especially Cartesian way of thinking about perpetual motion
machines and the like. If free energy has to serve the modern industrial
paradigm, then, well then yes, this is as good as it gets. If on the other hand
you have different expectations about how and why humans might want to harness
energy, then the possibilities open up enormously. But perhaps I’m getting
ahead of myself.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 11.0pt;">First, you might
ask, what does it matter if the combustion engine is an almost-half-decent, but
not-quite-really, perpetual motion machine? It has served quite well, you say?
Or maybe you’re of the mind that it’ll just have to do.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Well of course
regular readers of this blog will know where I stand on that, which could be
summed up by saying the combustion engine has already done quite enough, thank
you very much.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 11.0pt;">What’s more, the
joke is on us. It turns out that petroleum is cheap and ever-abundant no more.
And with enormous and profound investments in all things petroleum, our
dependence has slowly transformed into a great albatross around our neck. In
other words, after being hooked on almost free energy, we are now stuck with
much more expensive energy, and the spectre of global economic contraction. In
the meantime, we have developed such a culture of entitlement combined with a
collective faith in technology that our expectations speak more of our wishes
and our emotions, than they do of any great understanding about how energy is
concentrated to do work on an industrial scale. <i>Of course</i> we hope that something will come along to sustain and
maintain what we’ve come to take as normal.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 11.0pt;">A lengthy
discussion as to why this hope is likely to be met with disappointment belongs to another series of
posts, which I am happy to mention exists already in the ongoing blog of John Michael
Greer, The Archdruid Report [<a href="http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.ca/2011/03/trouble-with-vaporware.html" target="_blank">why not start here!</a>].
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 11.0pt;">For here and
now, at the risk of over simplifying, I’ll just sum it up by suggesting that
technology in the advanced stages of the petro-modern industrial civilisation
that we know, is subject to a heavy dose of the law of diminishing returns;
that even industrial society is subject to ecological cycles and therefore limits,
and that while we may have limitless imagination, Nature is by no means obliged
to provide us with the means to realise every fantasy we come up with.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Fortunately for
those of us who are willing to look outside the industrial model for the future
of human existence, there is reason to believe in perpetual motion. If you are
willing to accept continued production should adopt a human-scale, that economic
activity should operate within the limits of Nature, and that, in the big
picture you’re willing to accept a few billion years as approaching infinity,
well, then you can confidently assert that the much sought-after perpetual
motion machine already exists in the form of the solar system we happen to live
in. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Each and every
day we can count on the rising sun, the tides, prevailing winds and the
changing seasons. We know how these cycles can work in our favour. We know what
these cycles will always demand of us. These cycles of nature are the closest
thing to constant we can possibly know. Once our attempts at perpetual motion
and incessant motoring slowly fades into the history of the future, we can
possibly put the fantasy of triumph over Nature where it belongs, roll up our
sleeves and get to working with the only perpetual motion machine we could ever
know.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Between the here
and now, and that point in the distant future, there is a lot of ground to
cover. I suspect it will be a bumpy ride…<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Kyoto Motorshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09722522804036548328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9128461431848916512.post-15973803905069988612015-01-22T22:33:00.000-05:002015-01-22T22:33:05.966-05:00“Lad Scientist” Makes Perpetual Breakthrough<h2>
<span lang="EN-CA"><span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Exxon Mobil, General Motors, Fed to launch Free Energy Plan using 12-year-old’s invention</span></span></h2>
<h4>
<i><span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Last updated 10:28 pm, January 19, 2015 </span></i></h4>
<i><st1:place style="font-size: 10pt;" w:st="on"><span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><st1:city w:st="on">Rugby</st1:city>,
<st1:state w:st="on">N.D.</st1:state></span></st1:place></i><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size: 10.0pt;">In a town famous for being the geographical center of <st1:place w:st="on">North America</st1:place>, </span><span style="font-size: 13.3333330154419px;">the people of Rugby North Dakota are now faced with being the center of attention.</span><span style="font-size: 10pt;"> Everywhere you look, camera crews and network
trucks are setting up camp, and the excitement on </span><st1:street style="font-size: 10pt;" w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Main Street</st1:address></st1:street><span style="font-size: 10pt;"> is palpable. What's all the fuss about? </span><span style="font-size: 13.3333330154419px;">The hoopla is centered around a local middle school science fair.</span><span style="font-size: 13.3333330154419px;"> </span><span style="font-size: 10pt;">This is where
seventh grade student Danny Yurkin, a student at McKinley Junior High has come up
with an invention that is rocking the foundations of modern science. From this
day forward, </span><st1:place style="font-size: 10pt;" w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Rugby</st1:city> <st1:state w:st="on">N.D.</st1:state></st1:place><span style="font-size: 10pt;"> will most certainly go down in history
as the place of the greatest scientific breakthrough since Einstein shattered
the atom.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt;">His invention? A perpetual motion machine designed to run an
automobile “for as long as the tires have treads”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size: 10.0pt;">In addition to the hoards of reporters, scientists from Harvard,
Berkeley and Canada have already descended upon this small town to get a
glimpse of the invention, which has been kept behind closed doors for the time
being, while school officials and the student’s parents entered into talks with
big-wigs from Exxon, GM, the Fed and a select few from the scientific
community. </span><span style="font-size: 10pt;">The latter were brought in to observe the findings of the young
inventor, first discovered by his science teacher Colm Campbell who was overseeing the annual
science fair assignment last November.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size: 10.0pt;">"At first I was skeptical – I mean, I think all kids dream of
perpetual motion cars – I know I did, when I was young – and, well I ain't no
millionaire!” said Mr. Campbell. </span><span style="font-size: 10pt;">But he said it was only a
matter of time before he’d come to see just how revolutionary young Mr.</span></span><span style="color: #274e13; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Yurkin</span><span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">'s project actually was. </span><span style="font-size: 10pt;">“I couldn't believe my eyes! To see such a work of genius, of
pure logic and incredible vision for the benefit of mankind – all from a kid,”
adding “It’s really humbling.”</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt;">Now, it’s not just his teachers in the sleepy town of <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Rugby</st1:city></st1:place>, but scientists from
around the world who have so much to learn. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span lang="EN-CA" style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgK-AGPbNqXKbFW1DpXsXRjcgTR1LWWLc-fDyVT4xZEkw17Hd-d9MjIugyJmmUWH9MWARb5waGDowrO2HF1adyYuk9CWeuEEzAhszYWMlNhgmFhHhBoeDBP2rtJA6RGYCD2SmFZKJ9uHR8/s1600/hubMotel.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgK-AGPbNqXKbFW1DpXsXRjcgTR1LWWLc-fDyVT4xZEkw17Hd-d9MjIugyJmmUWH9MWARb5waGDowrO2HF1adyYuk9CWeuEEzAhszYWMlNhgmFhHhBoeDBP2rtJA6RGYCD2SmFZKJ9uHR8/s1600/hubMotel.jpg" height="200" width="133" /></span></a></div>
<span lang="EN-CA" style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt;">From the halls of the Hub Motel where a press conference was
assembled early on the morning of January 13th, scientist and physicist Joel
Tainter said “To think that a young student could come along and school us so
completely. It truly is astounding!” But if there was a tone of excited
anticipation, there was also an undercurrent of disgruntlement brewing the
longer the crowd waited. Some scientists were growing impatient outside the
locked doors of the conference room. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span lang="EN-CA" style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt;">“This is the holy grail for us. It’s profoundly unjust to
deprive the scientific community of what is clearly the greatest breakthrough
any of us are going to see in our lifetime” said Devin Marcellus who has been
developing cold fusion technology for the past 45 years.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt;">“I’m very keen to see it,” said Noah Kawasaki, physicist from <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">Alberta</st1:state></st1:place>, “I have been
dreaming of perpetual motion since I was 10. To think that I will actually live
to see it come true is enough to bring tears to my eyes. Every minute that goes
by without perpetual motion now seems excruciating!”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt;">When the doors to the conference finally opened, a crush of
reporters, video crews and camera men surged into the hall. All focus was on a
stunned Danny Yurkin. Everyone in the room had one question on their minds:
just how did this boy come up with the answers that have stumped modern science
for centuries? The boy had this to stay: “I wasn't so much into science. I just
like cars and stuff. Plus my dad lost his job. I thought it would be cool not
to have to pay for gas anymore.”<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span lang="EN-CA" style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt;">Sources from the boy’s family confirmed his father’s loss of
employment as a horizontal drilling rig operator. His grandmother claims it was
then the boy started to dream about a future <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region> where energy was free, and
independent from oil.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt;">When pressed on the matter, it was NASA’s Todd Murphy official
scientist for the Free Energy Plan who fielded the question: “One look at his
ingenious design and you’ll wonder why no one has ever come up with this
before- it’s deceivingly simple”. Adding that for proprietary reasons, the
invention would not be unveiled that day. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt;">When asked whether it was a conflict of interest to have
Exonn-Mobil heading the partnership, the spokesperson from Exxon Hubert M. Roy spoke
of the importance of the corporation’s role in solving the problem of peak oil
and climate change, and make them issues of the past.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt;">It appears that even before the news of Danny Yurkin’s invention broke, both Exxon and GM
had entered negotiations with the boy’s teachers and parents, prompting some to
worry that the invention will never see the light of day. But with the fracking
industry in a quagmire, there’s reason to believe otherwise. Mr.
Roy reassured the public at the press conference, saying that in collaboration
with GM and the Federal Reserve, ExxonMobil would lead <st1:country-region w:st="on">America</st1:country-region> to prosperity and independence thanks to
the boy genius from <st1:place w:st="on">Rugby</st1:place>. “After all,
something has to fill the void left by the slumping production numbers in shale
oil and the soaring number of job losses in the Bakken region”.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span lang="EN-CA" style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<h4>
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">Disorder Erupts</span></span></h4>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt;">The press conference was cut short by security when a gang of
protesters disrupted proceedings shouting “it’s too good to be true” and
handing out a leaflet from a group calling themselves “The Green Wizards Of America”. Spokesperson Johnny McGrier proclaimed that the environment is still in as much jeopardy as ever
and that perpetual motion is against the laws of physics.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt;">In the midst of the disruption, Yurkin, scientists and industry leaders were seen laughing with
reporters as they were whisked away by security forces. Corporal Lt. Charles
Keaton of the ND State Police force said it had become clear that tensions were
only going to mount. No one was arrested.</span><br />
<span lang="EN-CA" style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span lang="EN-CA" style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333330154419px;">A spokesperson for Gov. Jack Dalrymple's office expressed disappointment with the trouble-makers, saying "There's always got to be someone who wants to spoil the party".</span><br />
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Liberal politicians denied any association with the rabble
saying that they “distance themselves completely from any and all wizards”,
adding that they were totally for the scientific breakthrough, echoing
sentiments expressed earlier by President Obama.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt;">That morning, the president chimed in from the Oval Office: “I
somehow knew all along that through the wishful thinking of our youth and our
legacy of technological know-how, <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region> would prevail. It appears
now that we truly will rise above the competition and lead the way onward and
upward, with perpetual motion.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size: 10.0pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 10pt;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt;">Exxon Mobile issued a final statement later explaining that a
further presentation of the perpetual motion machine and the Free Energy Plan for
<st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region>
would be unveiled in Detroit once a working model of the boy’s invention was assembled by
the engineers at GM.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt;">A spokesperson from NASA confirmed that they have entered the
partnership and are planning to look into the invention’s applications for
space travel, particularly in the area of physics known as escape velocity.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Kyoto Motorshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09722522804036548328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9128461431848916512.post-85368008191945783882014-06-19T09:27:00.000-04:002014-06-19T09:27:15.533-04:00Accidents of Design <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><img src="//img2.blogblog.com/img/video_object.png" style="background-color: #b2b2b2; " class="BLOGGER-object-element tr_noresize tr_placeholder" id="ieooui" data-original-id="ieooui" />
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-CA">It is easy to
jump to any number of rash conclusions regarding road safety after the recent
string of accidents here in Montreal
that has now seen three fatalities and at least two serious injuries. In the
wake of such preventable deaths and unnecessary suffering, emotions invariably
run high. Among the knee-jerk reactions thrown about recently, I’ve heard the
call to ban trucks, as well as a call to ban cyclists; others have chosen to
curse cars all to hell or find some other way to throw the blame about. None of
this is particularly helpful. The fact remains that none of these modes of
transport is about to disappear any time soon. Unfortunately neither is this
sort of tragic occurrence: based on statistical averages, there will be about
400 pedestrian and cyclist deaths caused by automotive transport in Canada
this year. Clearly, some sort of concerted shift in both design and behaviour
is needed in order to improve safety. It’s pretty clear that some shifts are
inevitable, and without proactive efforts to orchestrate a culture of safety,
things could easily get worse before they get better.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-CA">The Kyotomotors
approach to road safety naturally embraces active transport as a major piece of
the puzzle, where one’s legs do the work. After all, doing the opposite by
discouraging cycling would only make it more dangerous for the few who remain
determined to ride the streets. What’s more, this path would lead us further
away from the objective of reduced carbon emissions.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-CA">Car sharing and
public transit add further layers of safety by way of reducing traffic volume,
and giving more space to the active transport users. The presence of the
latter, once it reaches a certain critical mass should (ideally) have an
overall calming effect on the motorised vehicles that remain in the mix. But of
course there is always a potential downside to all idealised scenarios, and
this is no exception. If ever we are to achieve and sustain a significant and
meaningful shift to broad-based active transport, as we must if only to combat
climate change, then we have to prepare ourselves for a host of emergent
traffic safety challenges. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-CA">This, my
friends, is what loosely defines the theme of the present blog post and at
least one or two to follow, and I would like to start by stepping back, and
expressing my condolences to the loved-ones of the victims in the recent
accidents alluded to at the outset here. And, by extension, I would like to
express my sympathies to all of my readers who have been touched by the loss of
someone close, due to poor road safety.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-CA">Fatal road
accidents are most tragic because they are almost always random, and certainly
preventable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-CA">While we can’t
necessarily know for sure what happens in the final seconds leading up to such
a fatality, we can make some interesting generalisations as to why we’ve
created such a dangerous set of circumstances. So even if we can’t say if a
given death was a freak instance of bad luck, the result of fool-hearty
behaviour or that of criminal negligence, we can look at what underlies such
unfortunate events. I am thinking specifically of the fact that for many
decades we have invested extensively in a system of infrastructure and habitual
behaviour that increases the likelihood of such tragedies: the very built
environment makes it difficult and dangerous for active transport to share the
road with commercial traffic and an inordinate number of personalised
motor-vehicles.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-CA">So, looking
past the specifics of any given scenario, we can generalise about why places
like underpasses are so dangerous, and look at the underlying reasons as to how
we got to where we are with urban design. There are many types of features,
like underpasses, that were simply never conceived of for cyclists. Whole
generations of planners appear to have engineered so much of the (aging)
contemporary city (suburbs included) with the sole purpose of driving in mind.
I suppose it’s because pretty much everyone was doing it: why ride a bike in
the burgeoning age of the automobile? In other words – to be fair – why design
for something that simply wasn’t on the radar? </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-CA">This of course
is really just the tip of the iceberg. Look a little closer, and we come face
to face with the legacy of the so called “love affair” with the car. This is
just a poetic and propagandistic way of explaining the place that the
automotive fleet has come to occupy in our lives. The sheer space we have allocated
to it is simultaneously geographical and physical; economic and political; and
finally psychological and emotional – all of which speaks volumes to the
underlying assumptions about freedom and progress that we associate with all
things automotive. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-CA">The love affair
with the automobile is so profound that we forgive its shortcomings, which are
many. One of which of course is the staggering number of traffic fatalities
over the past century involving pedestrians, cyclists, drivers and passengers
alike. Further drawbacks involve victims of pollution, and climate change, as
well as expropriation of arable land and the physical disintegration of
neighbourhoods/ communities… And yet, the love affair persists, thanks in no
small part to the marketing efforts of an industry that insists on trying to
convince us that the emotional bond is real.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-CA">Historically,
with the love affair firmly in place, we ploughed ahead and invested heavily in
the car-centric way of life – a collective decision you might want to file
under “it seemed like a good idea at the time”. And of course, with the
physicality of this built environment (capital investment), came a re-shaping
of the collective psychological landscape (emotional investment), which brings
us back to the love affair, now amplified. The result is a positive feedback
scenario that leads us to believe that more of the same is always good. This
explains in part why so called economic development it invariably implies more
sprawl, more driving, more consumption and more destruction of natural
ecosystems. So, the build-up of urban environments during the heyday of<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>the car clearly was achieved to the detriment
of bicycle and pedestrian safety, but it becomes clear that this is only a
small part of the bigger problem related to this heavy investment in one
particular living arrangement. The most tragic aspect of this unbridled
commitment is that a suite of unforeseen limitations guarantees that the
car-centric economic arrangement is simply unsustainable.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-CA">Now, you will
hear me argue from time to time that modern industrial society is a type of
ecosystem – not just because it’s a truth that gets ignored by most people most
of the time, but because it serves up the crucial reminder that even our
celebrated technological civilization is subject to the limits of Nature –
another truth that is consistently ignored. It just happens to be the only
ecosystem that managed to leverage the energy of fossil fuels, which is what
sets it apart from both ecosystems and civilisations of the past. Whether this
is “natural” or not would be a semantic debate I am unwilling to pursue here,
but that this ecosystem has become destructive on an industrial scale is pretty
clear to those of us who are paying attention. It is also worth noting that, like
all ecosystems, the modern industrial type has limits, and is subject to
negative feedback loops.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-CA">The list of
limits is long, and includes the loss of arable land, and the supply of food
and water required to sustain a given population. Many limits will likely play
out on a timescale that will motivate only a few to change: if recent behaviour
with respect to GHG is any indication, society does not turn on a dime. So
Climate change – itself a potential limit on sprawl, only stands a chance of
effecting a change in behaviour through the dreaded cataclysmic weather event.
Another crucial limit on sprawl and to the economy as a whole, of course has to
do with the very energy supply, especially petroleum. Lastly (though there are
surely many others) another limit we face – less directly, yet I would argue
ultimately also a limit of Nature – is the ability of a given municipality,
province or state to go into debt to service new infrastructure.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-CA">Fortunately (or
not), the petroleum factor represents the one limit that looms on the horizon
that will inevitably have a much more immediate effect on the future of sprawl,
and of cities, and how we choose to move about the landscape. Regular readers
have heard me go on about peak oil before, so I’ll not go into the details
again, but the intractable fact remains that cheap and abundant liquid fuel is
an increasingly dwindling resource. Consequently, many people will simply be
priced out of the market of suburban living and car ownership across the board,
no matter what ideological views they hold dear to their hearts.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-CA">On the upside,
the effects of this fundamental economic shift start rippling through the
economy, the negative feedback effect takes place in at least two ways. On the
one hand our behaviour will necessarily change, and on the other, more
gradually, the design of our built environment will be adjusted
accordingly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Clearly, on both fronts
these changes are underway already. Despite what the car companies would have you
believe, the trend is as plain as the nose on Stephen Harper’s face, and no
amount of hand waving, jingle singing or factory rebates is going to change
that. We may not be able to turn on a dime in this instance either, but there
is much we can do to make the transition to broad-based active transport less
dangerous and more reliable. Over time, citizens will quietly – at their own
pace – move<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>toward the Kyotomotors
recipe of living in the more dense urban centres, adopting active transport
habits to the best of their abilities, and will otherwise be faced with
exploring the public- transit and shared-vehicle alternatives to individual car
ownership. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-CA">As this trend
inevitably gains traction we will all be faced with new challenges of
co-existence, since the proportional use of the streets is destined to shift
dramatically over time. The particulars of such a trend will likely be complex,
and I hope to elaborate on this at a later date. In the meantime, just
recognising the general scope of the trend is the first step. With respect to
addressing safety issues for increasingly shared streets, we really must
acknowledge that the number of cyclists on the road is only bound to increase
dramatically in the long run. Designing public space accordingly will be one of
the wisest moves a community could work for these days.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-CA">As far as the
ongoing struggle to address carbon emissions goes, this is a hopeful
projection. However, if in fact we can collectively achieve a meaningful level
of broad-based active transport that I would characterise as desirable, we
would inevitably have a whole new challenge of bicycle safety on our hands: On
the one hand we will be faced with the legacy of the love affair with the car,
and the culture of entitlement to the road that that entails (still very much a
danger to be reckoned with); on the other hand we will also be faced with a
particular mentality that characterises much of “bike culture” where the rule
of and respect for law is fuzzy at best. On top of this dynamic is the
emotional relationship between motorists and active transport users. Setting
aside the fact that the two overlap considerably, there is still a potential
polarisation that does occur, pitting one group against the other. Animosity
and road rage in public space is clearly not going to contribute to the
solutions that we’re looking for moving forward. As with all conflict, both
sides have to assume some responsibility for its resolution. How best to
mitigate the emergent and amplified dangers of our future public spaces will
have to wait for the next Kyotomotors blog post…. Soon, I hope.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<br /></div>
Kyoto Motorshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09722522804036548328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9128461431848916512.post-47349039389667404012014-02-24T22:53:00.000-05:002014-02-24T22:53:38.842-05:00Kudos to Neil Young, part two: "With a Caveat"<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><img src="//img2.blogblog.com/img/video_object.png" style="background-color: #b2b2b2; " class="BLOGGER-object-element tr_noresize tr_placeholder" id="ieooui" data-original-id="ieooui" />
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA"></span><span lang="EN-CA">Having applauded
Neil Young’s stance in support of the First Nations of the Athabasca,
and in opposition to the exploitation of the region’s Tar Sands, in the
previous post here, I couldn’t help but feel that there was so much left
unsaid.</span>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">It was certainly
worth mentioning that Canada’s future is presently hinging upon energy policy,
and in particular, the politics of Tar Sands development; and to point out that
there is a meme-war being waged, primarily by official propaganda, as well as by
more subtle forms of auto-censorship and general denial and ignorance, where
one hears the euphemism “oil sands” more often than not. The technical term is
actually bitumen. The best vernacular, in my opinion, is tar sands, which, as
mentioned already, I believe should be referred to as the Athabasca
Tar Sands as often as possible.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">Also worth
repeating is the following:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">Tar Sands
development is happening in a particular global economic context which must be
recognised. It’s called <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">peak oil</b>.
Not a conspiracy theory, nor a myth, peak oil is the defining economic
precondition for all energy policy henceforth across the globe. The fact that
we largely refuse to stare this in the face (and name it) does not bode well
for the future of energy policy, not to mention economics in general.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">But the fact is
that more often than not, if you bring up notions along these lines in polite
company, you’ll be met with blank stares and immediate efforts to change the
subject. I am so used to this by now, that I save most of my opinions on the
matter for this blog, for better or for worse.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">The issues Neil Young
raises with the “Honour the Treaties Tour” are many, and only some of them are
directly related to energy. So much else pertains to human rights, which in
turn evokes a whole set of emotional, political and moral response. But energy
is never far from the core of the matter. At the root of most energy issues, in
turn, is our dependence on petroleum and sense of entitlement that stems from
it.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">It may be
important to remember that Neil Young is a baby boomer, which is to say, he grew
up in North America at a very special time in the history of modern Western
industrial civilisation: the post war boom was a time of unprecedented growth
and optimism, where for the first time in history, an entire generation was
born into a culture of consumer affluence and freedom of expression and
generally unprecedented growth. The abundance of industry flowed to the victors
in the age of petroleum. No other set of circumstances could have produced the
counter-culture of the youth in the 60’s in which Neil Young played a
significant part. Similarly, no other set of circumstances could have produced
the phenomenon of sub-urban sprawl, at once both a love affair, and a deep economic
commitment to a car-oriented way of life. It should come as no surprise, then,
to know that Neil describes himself as a lover of cars – big fast cars, to
boot.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">More recently, to
his credit he has taken his love for cars and held it up to some significant
degree of scrutiny: he has begun to take CO2 emissions seriously enough to turn
his back on the gasoline engine. In turn, he appears to have been putting his
money where his mouth is and helping to develop an alternatively fuelled
vehicle that also happens to fulfil his sentimental, aesthetic requirements
when it comes to the look of the car.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">Now, I happen to
like Neil’s aesthetic choices here, and coincidentally I like most of the music
he has put out over the years – I grew up on so much of it… And I must
emphasize just how encouraging it is to see a prominent baby boomer assume a
role of leadership when it comes to Climate Change and the matter of
questioning business as usual. According to some, this was supposed to be the
order of the day as boomers retired and no longer had anything to lose. They
were all supposed to become activists again (or for the first time, at least) but
that’s another discussion…</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">So Kudos to Neil
Young yet again here at Kyotomotors.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">However, Neil
Young’s vision for North America’s Energy
future has to be put to the test in its own right, and I’m sorry to report that
it leaves a whole lot to be desired. While his heart is in the right place with
respect to climate change and future generations, as well as tar sands and
First Nations people, his hopes for energy alternatives are at best naïve and
possibly just downright misinformed.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">I have listened
to him speak at length about the alternatives he has explored, and envisions
for the future.[You can check out one of his videos <a href="http://www.neilyoung.com/newnytimes/nytimessemavideo.html" target="_blank">here</a></span><span lang="EN-CA"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>]. Like I said, Neil
loves big cars and speed, and he has put his money where his mouth is: he and his
team have built the plug-in electric hybrid car of his dreams (at considerable
cost). He wants to drive with a reduced carbon footprint, and has managed to do
so. But there is a fly in the ointment. Neil assumes that, with his
experimental success, it is now just a matter of convincing the various players
to convert (presumably government, the Big Three auto-makers, and consumers)
and scale the project up. In other words, he assumes two things. First, that
the economic incentive to do so exists, even though<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>big oil inevitably will continue to assert
itself in all realms of policy; and second, that the proposed technology could
necessarily scale-up to meet the needs of all those people who would convert
from their gasoline powered cars and “go electric”. While neither of these two
assumptions is anywhere close to being given, there is an even more troubling
aspect to Neil’s logic.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">Neil Young does
take the “Big Three” car companies to task for their apparent unwillingness to
stray from a very narrow path. No argument there. But nowhere in his critical
analysis of North Americans’ CO2 output does he question the pervasive habit of
individual car ownership. According to him, personal vehicle commuters drive an
average 35 miles a day – this established collective exercise (often taking the
form of gridlock) stems from the aforementioned post-war model of sprawl that
has surrounded every city on the continent. It is the essence of Western
civilisation’s mode of economic activity (consumerism); to some it is the
epitome of absurdity or worse; to others, it is sacred, and non-negotiable.
Neil seems to be convinced that the redesigned plug-in hybrid vehicle can and
should preserve the sprawl model, and save the grandchildren from the CO2
emissions at the same time. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">Again, there is
no argument here about the need to address the challenges of carbon emissions
and climate change: certainly it is the purpose of this blog to support points
of view that help in the cause…. But it is far from certain that any meaningful
success in the fight against climate change is possible based on the personal
vehicle ownership model, and I’ll explain why in a moment.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">When James Howard
Kunstler refers, as he does so often, to our futile attempt to sustain the
unsustainable, I believe he’s really hit the nail on the head. Our contemporary
myths of progress tend to bolster the fantasy (illusion) that we can continue
with “happy motoring” with alt fuels, because that’s what we wish to do. But in
terms of sheer energy output (and work accomplished) no alternative to
petroleum or any combination of alternatives can measure up and achieve the
same results – and that’s basic math. He is also making the point that we are
very much ready to believe the lies we tell ourselves as sit on our hands and
wait for “them” who are busy thinking of “something” for the future. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">Neil Young has
thought of something, but he’s not the first one to think of that very
something. More than ten years ago, while a fringe group of activists
complained about GM’s mothballing of their EV1 program (battery operated cars),
many of the same were screaming loudly about the need for plug-in hybrids as
the answer. Some such vehicles have finally made it to the market, at a
trickle, and at considerable cost to the few consumers who are willing to go
that route. Will another ten years make the difference? At the same time
hydrogen fuel cells were promised to be the way of the future (remember GWB’s
“hydrogen economy”? It was a vision that was sold as being about ten years off
– or in other words, right about now. Personally, I don’t think I’ve ever even
seen a hydrogen car. Have you?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">So, where are we
now? Well one thing that’s different is we are about five years into the peak
oil phase of the story. I’m not sure, but Neil shows no sign of being aware of
the peak oil scene, but he is acutely aware of the Athabasca Tar Sands, which,
as I’ve mentioned, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">is</i> a peak oil
sub-plot. That’s where some of the world’s energy has to come from as most
people continue to cling the individual owner model of motoring around the <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>landscape. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">Neil, is still
holding on to that model himself, and apparently believes that with his choice
of technology (using biofuels (ethanol) and electricity), or something similar,
we won’t need Tar Sands oil and we won’t be churning out the CO2 that would
otherwise adversely affect future generations. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">The logic of it
is seemingly very enticing and convincing –it was high on my wish list at one
time too –but there is a catch, and it amounts to a glaring oversight on Neil’s
part. Nowhere in his argument does he ask or suggest where all the electricity
for the new fleet is supposed to come from. He only makes reference to a power
grid that is simply “there” and “ready” to be used for charging one’s batteries
each and every night after peak use. Now, if this plan is truly to be a
sweeping replacement to petroleum (ie a significant majority of participants),
there are at least two major problems: first, the night quickly becomes the new
time of peak consumption of electricity as everyone recharges their vehicles’
batteries while they sleep. Second, this will also require an enormous amount
of additional electricity generated. And just where does electricity come from
these days? On that scale (outside of Quebec),
we’re invariably talking about coal, and natural gas. In turn, when we talk
about growing supplies of natural gas nowadays, we are talking about fracking, which
is another peak oil sub-plot in its own right. Coal is an enormous source of
CO2 emissions, and fracking for natural gas happens to be a far more carbon
intensive way of extracting methane than all other forms of conventional gas
production. Neil Young’s would-be silver bullet is not so shiny after all…</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">Fortunately
there is a real, alternative way forward, and that is to wean ourselves off of
the personal car ownership model of doing things. Unfortunately, it will not be
especially popular for some time yet, since there is just so much in the way of
established habit and expectations when it comes to energy, that we won’t
change those habits or expectations until something forces us to do so. After
all, we love our cars…</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">But peak oil
guarantees that, in the long run, those changes will come, and individual car
ownership will by in large, become a thing of the past. When it does, we’ll see
if it happened quickly enough for the fight against climate change. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">At the end of
the day, the low carbon way forward is what I like to call the Kyoto Motors way
forward, where the most common motor put to use is the average citizen’s pair
of legs. In this vision of the future, walkable communities are essential, and
bicycle culture stands to supplant car culture. In turn, urban cars are shared
cars, and yes, many or most could be electric. The trains and buses of public
transit will service suburbs and cities for free giving added incentive to all
taxpayers to take advantage of the service.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">But like most
visions of the future, mine is fraught with idealisations, naïve oversights and
unintended consequences, to be sure. So I will not dwell on the subject. What I
will say is that as far as the Kyotomotors vision goes, it’s the present, not
the future that counts. In many urban centres today, most, if not all, the
elements of the alternative way forward already exist. Proven, established
technologies that emit far less CO2 need only be popularised one citizen at a
time.</span></div>
Kyoto Motorshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09722522804036548328noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9128461431848916512.post-81937298912838493402014-01-17T22:34:00.003-05:002014-01-17T22:34:59.863-05:00Kudos to Neil Young!<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><img src="//img2.blogblog.com/img/video_object.png" style="background-color: #b2b2b2; " class="BLOGGER-object-element tr_noresize tr_placeholder" id="ieooui" data-original-id="ieooui" />
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">According to the official line, the “Canadian
Oil Sands” is some kind of sacred cow of economic prosperity. By “official line”,
of course, I mean propaganda, which in this case uses the word prosperity with
an almost smug tone to an excessive degree. Prosperity has many criteria, however,
and the official version may not stand up to scrutiny, when put to the test.
But of course scrutiny is not the job of propaganda. That job is up to us,
including, but not limited to the likes of Neil Young.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">Kudos to Neil!</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">In my last post here I applauded the stand
taken by Montreal
indie musicians, Godspeed! You Black Emperor, for their direct and unequivocal
statement about corporate interests in the arts and climate change in general.
Now, Mr. Young is making an even bigger scene, with the courage one would wish
leaders in other arenas might one day display. An entire book could be written
on the question as to why it falls on artists to be among the most prominently
vocal dissenters, but more important is the question as to why there are so few
artists, and so few people in general – especially of the boomer generation to
which Neil Young belongs – objecting and otherwise protesting the development
of the Athabasca Tar Sands. I have tried in my own way to be one of those
artists, and I encourage you, dear reader, artist or not, to do the same in
your daily life.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">For starters, let’s cut the crap about “oil
sands”. Oil, it is not – and I will elaborate on this point momentarily. A more
accurate, albeit less palatable term is “tar sands”. It reminds us of the
actual nature of the resource, and, by way of legitimate negative connotation,
of the drawbacks associated with it. Sadly the media have capitulated on the
point, referring to the stuff obediently as “oil sands” ever since the
Conservatives won a majority, or so it seems to me.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">By the way, I also insist on referring to
the Tar Sands region as the Athabasca, and not as Fort McMurray, out of respect for the First
Nations people who first named the place, and who, incidentally are among the
most directly affected by the pollution flowing from the industry there. It is an
obvious measure, and the very least we might do to help counter the propaganda
we are being fed.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">But maybe you are not convinced. Why should
we take a closer, deeper look at this supposedly promising industry?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">The main reason is that we, under the
current “leadership”, are collectively investing in the tar sands as the
backbone of our economic future. This is the dawn of Harper’s dream of the
great Canadian petro-state, like it or not. The so-called prosperity, however,
has a downside: many drawbacks, and unsavoury consequences that we will have to
live with for generations to come. “Tar” represents thinking about this darker aspect
of the so-called prosperity. “Oil” represents the wishful thinking that
pretends away the problems while focusing on the money. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">After all, the free market logic will
always focus on the money, on the sheer volume of “oil” and on the jobs that
will stem from the industrial development, effectively acting as a bribe, so as
to collectively ignore the downside and consequences represented by the word
“tar”. (More on the economics of “tar” below…)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">But first, more on the Tar itself:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">Unlike our beloved oil, this resource is
not “light and sweet”. Rather, it is cruder than crude, and it sits in the
ground in the most inconvenient of ways, requiring some of the most
industrially intensive methods of extraction on the planet. There may be a lot
of it, but the advantages of abundance, if any, are hampered by some pretty
undeniable facts and hurdles of natural physics. For one thing, the drawdown of
fresh water, and the resultant contamination and storage of waste water is a
huge problem, increasing with every passing year whether production increases
or not. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">And then there’s the carbon emissions
factor. Long before a litre of gasoline distilled from Athabasca tar sands (synthetic
crude) reaches a gas tank, say, in Toronto,
it has a carbon footprint of shame that Canadians who are still concerned about
climate change should shun. A country that at one time at least pretended to
care about global warming is slowly slipping down a slope toward the position
as the planet’s worst emissions offender.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">Of course, the crude products flowing from
the Athabasca region also have to get to
market, and we are currently discovering that the risks associated with
pipelines and tanker trains are significant, already having blackened the shiny
veneer of our new found prosperity…</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">Of course, if you’re on the side of the
fence that reaps the economic dividends (the bribe) of the production, you’re
unlikely to be convinced, swayed, or otherwise sympathetic to these expressions
of dissent and opposition. There is however some serious scrutiny that
challenges the conventional wisdom behind the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">economics </i>of the Tar Sands project. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">It just so happens that there are other
drawbacks associated with tar sands production that you rarely hear about in
the national energy conversation, and they are ultimately economic in nature,
casting doubt on the long term viability of Tar Sands extraction in the first
place.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">Setting the stage: peak oil and price</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">Forget the hoopla surrounding the new era
of energy independence and the miracle in fracking for oil. (I’ll not go on
about it here, but I’ll soon touch on this with another post). Global
conventional crude oil production has peaked (circa 2006). What has followed has
been the predictable attempt to make up the shortfall (continued growth)
through other means. The resultant narrative is the story of both fracking, and
of the Athabasca Tar Sands, sold to us (by means of state and industry
propaganda) as the solution to our woes. Crucial to the story though, is the
price spike caused by ever diminishing supplies of the cheap and easy-to-get
oil (That’s what happens after a peak). The current $100 a barrel price makes
for barely profitable operations up in the Athabasca,
and keeps Harper’s fantasy about prosperity afloat. But as much as it is
afloat, the new era in oil ain’t like the good old days.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">Flow rate </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">Part of the Athabasca Tar Sands fantasy was
always about a 5 million-barrels-a-day rate of extraction, which has still not
been achieved. Because Tar trapped in sand does not flow like crude oil,
increasing flow rates is a stupendously gargantuan, and costly proposition
dependent on inputs of energy and water, both of which act as limits on the
ultimate output of synthetic crude. As sure as five million barrels a day is
the dream, seven or ten million barrels a day is at best a pipe dream, or at
worst, a nightmare scenario.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">A closer look at the aforementioned “most
industrially intensive methods of extraction on the planet” brings us to the
issue of energy inputs, revealing the biggest economic shortcoming of the
operation: In order to get to the true economic cost of the Tar Sands we have
to consider something called EROEI. This acronym is a scientific measure used
in the industry referring to the “energy return on energy invested”. It is useful
because it effectively circumvents the abstractions and distortions you get
when the economics of energy extraction are measured in money. The principle
amounts to this: for every unit of energy extracted, we have spent x units of
energy up front. In economic terms, it measures the true dividends of any given
energy operation. As an example, light sweet crude extracted from a
conventional Albertan oil field would have yielded an EROEI of anywhere from
80:1 to as much as 100:1. That’s a serious profit margin indeed. By comparison,
the EROEI of the Tar Sands is a mere fraction of its light sweet cousin’s. It
also happens to be harder to measure, given the complexity of the operations,
but the average estimates seem to be around 5:1. Not only is this a dismal
return that is unlikely to change over time, it also happens to be less than
the EROEI of both wind and solar, which sit each at about 8:1.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">Without an emotional investment in the oil
industry, you would think the famed “invisible hand” and its partner, the
rational consumer, would gravitate to other ways of investing their energy than
in Tar.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">We should be asking a string of hard questions.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">Is this the best way in which to invest our
current energy resources? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After all,
with such poor EROEI numbers, it is not all certain that the benefits outweigh any
further drawbacks not measured by EROEI, such as environmental impacts. Is this resource
truly the backbone of economic prosperity, or are we investing in an plan
with no real dividends?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">We must also ask ourselves “why do we even need
it?” Or better, “why do we think we need it?” Why does the conversation
surrounding energy always involve the illusion/dream of sustaining the current
patterns of consumption at all cost?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">Those current patterns are based on the
fantasy that we can all have our own personalised car-centered consumer
“lifestyle” with nothing but optimism about the future. We have been trying to
realise that dream for 60 years now, and where has all the optimism gone? It
left upon the arrival of a realisation that the dream comes with costs, borne
first by the pocketbook, and later by the biosphere, as we force the ecosystems
that support us to absorb all our “externalities”. Ultimately Nature has a say
as to how much we can extract, consume and how much waste we can throw back at
her. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">Politically, we too have a say as to how
much “oil sands” nonsense we are willing to accept. Will we have the courage to
accept the costs of saying “no” to the Athabasca Tar Sands project?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">More on that crucial question in a future
post…</span></div>
Kyoto Motorshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09722522804036548328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9128461431848916512.post-82779871186570551502013-09-24T22:53:00.000-04:002013-09-24T22:53:07.966-04:00With Godspeed!<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<strong><span style="font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"></span></strong><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--><strong><span style="font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">As I set out to write this I realize it will
appear that I just listen to the CBC and wait until there is something worth
reacting to for my blog content... It’s true that a pattern is emerging, but
really it’s just a coincidence that I happened to learn of this story as I woke
up to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Daybreak</i> this morning. As it
turns out, I heard it all again later this on CBC’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Q with Jian Ghomeshi</i>: Aparently the Montreal-based band <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Godspeed! You Black Emperror</i> ruffled
some feathers by accepting the annual Polaris Award in an unconventional
manner. But the content I am reacting to is not actually stemming from the CBC,
rather it can all be found on the website of Constellation Records (here: <a href="http://cstrecords.com/statement-from-godspeed-you-black-emperor-on-polaris/"><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">http://cstrecords.com/statement-from-godspeed-you-black-emperor-on-polaris/</span></a>).
Which delivers the following at its heart: </span></strong></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<strong><span style="font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> </span></strong>
</div>
<strong>3 quick bullet-points that almost anybody could agree on maybe=</strong><br />
<b>-holding a gala during a time of austerity and normalized decline is a
weird thing to do.</b><br />
<b>-organizing a gala just so musicians can compete against each other for a
novelty-sized cheque doesn’t serve the cause of righteous music at all.</b><br />
<strong>-asking the toyota motor company to help cover the tab for that
gala, during a summer where the melting northern ice caps are live-streaming on
the internet, IS FUCKING INSANE, and comes across as tone-deaf to the current
horrifying malaise.</strong><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">What’s more, I am not
writing in order to respond to some form of disinformation (for once!)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Rather, I have this to
say:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Kudos!</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It’s damn refreshing
that these guys found a way to raise a controversy on their own terms, in such
a succinct manner. It’s easy to get caught up in the prevailing myth of growth
and prosperity (propaganda) and forget that we are reaping the consequences of
some pretty bad ideas and choices of recent history…</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Godspeed! closes by
saying, </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“</span><span lang="EN-CA">apologies for being
such bores,<br />
we love you so much / our country is fucked,”</span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Far be it from me to
put words in Godspeed!’s mouths, but I will go out on a limb to say that their statement
deserves some Kyotomotors styled elaboration in solidarity – at risk of boring
you some more…</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Addressing the second
bullet point first, as a painter, I am familiar with similar prizes, awards and
contests where multi-billion-dollar corporations dole out a paltry 20 to 50
thousand dollars or so a year to artists in my milieu, and then reap the
benefits of the marketing that the whole charade represents, placing a big fat
corporate seal of approval on contemporary art for all to see. It’s at least a
tad disingenuous to say the least…</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Would I say no to the
$50 K Sobey award? Probably not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But if
the day ever came to pass, I may refer back to Godspeed!’s statement here for
some inspiration on how to accept it.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">But for the purposes
of this blog, I will refrain from any digression on the subject.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The first and third
points above, in my view, go hand in hand, and pertain in large measure to the
central theme of this blog, which is to say: to the consequences of industrial
society’s attempt to pursue exponential economic growth through the rapid
consumption and squandering of the fossil fuels that have enabled global
civilization to get to where it is now.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">(Chew on that one for
a while, if you will…)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The consequences are
many; not the least of which is the </span><span lang="EN-CA">spectre</span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> of climate change. Perhaps the most troubling
aspect of this most pressing issue is our collective inability to have a
level-headed dialogue about it, thus guaranteeing that we remain incapable of
taking real action as a society. This ties in with the “bribe” mentioned in my
previous post here: we are heavily invested (physically, psychologically) in a
way of doing things, and we are hokked on the so called benefits that ensue. We
are full of expectations that more of the same will bring better results. We
feel entitled. After all, progress is inevitable, right?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">And so, gone are the
notions of sacrifice that had their place in the collective consciousness of
our grandparents; yet we are faced with the cognitive dissonance that
reverberates over the gap between our myth of prosperity and the real austerity
on the ground.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Our country, in turn,
is indeed fucked, since the man at the helm has delusions of petro-state
grandeur. The tarsands will be exploited at all costs, because apart from the
boom/bubble in shale oil fracking south of the border, our prospects for
growing the oil supply are less than dim.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">While this post is
admittedly something of a rant, I assure you, I am not making this shit up. The
consensus on climate change is a fait accompli, and the reality of peak oil is
that it is literally undeniable, since petroleum is a finite resource. I have
pointed out more than once that rather than discredit the peak oil story, the
tarsands and shale oil projects confirm it, pushing back the day of reckoning
just a little, perhaps, while ultimately amplifying its ramifications.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">If you have some
doubts about this, maybe you should look up a more “reputable” source in the
likes of former CIBC economist Jeff Rubin, who foretold of $100 per barrel oil
over a decade ago, and was practically tarred and feathered for it. Rubin has
quite a lot of the facts together, and I recommend that anyone interested in understanding
the economics of peak oil check him out. His first book on the subject(“Why
Your World is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller”) has now been followed by
recent publication called “The End of Growth”, which gives you an idea of where
he’s coming from…</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Now, before I wax too
enthusiastic about Rubin, I will say that I disagree strongly with some of his interpretations,
particularly where he suggests that the market, and supply limits will take
care of climate change. But this dangerous assertion I will have to leave for
the subject of a future post.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">What I will say for
now is that he appears to be bang-on when he says that energy (especially
tarsands) is what’s going to define our future as a country, which is to say
fault-lines are already appearing over the matter, and the bribe it represents
hangs over our heads like an </span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">novelty-sized cheque.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Kyoto Motorshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09722522804036548328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9128461431848916512.post-87295019825190501562013-09-13T23:23:00.003-04:002013-09-14T09:42:17.864-04:00The Bribe<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><img src="//img2.blogblog.com/img/video_object.png" style="background-color: #b2b2b2; " class="BLOGGER-object-element tr_noresize tr_placeholder" id="ieooui" data-original-id="ieooui" />
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<span lang="EN-CA">As someone who has followed energy issues
in a quasi religious manner for more than ten years now, I am always intrigued
to hear how their interpretation comes out in the wash via the mainstream(ish)
media, like the CBC. Just today, the CBC aired a segment on pipelines <span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/player/Radio/The+180/ID/2406140355/">http://www.cbc.ca/player/Radio/The+180/ID/2406140355/</a> ],
</span> and
closed with a commentary by </span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Jean-Francois
Minardi [at the 13th minute]. This, in turn, was followed by </span><span lang="EN-CA">the question whether one would
forego one’s smart phone and (of all things) plastic mayonnaise containers, if
it meant no pipeline… I am inclined to answer yes, but I am hesitant, because
the question smells of bait.</span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">Indeed, it’s a trap; it’s a bribe.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">As the guest commentator points out, if I
may paraphrase, we live in the age of petroleum. Everywhere you care to look,
with the exception of the remote wilderness accessed by foot, if you look for
it, you’ll see petroleum at play. Anyone who has taken the time to connect the
dots, has at least a good idea of just how intricately dependent we are on
petroleum from everything from transport to agriculture, plastics (including
textiles) to computers. What’s more, in ecological, anthropological terms the
energy flow that petroleum represents has facilitated a degree of
specialisation that no other civilization has ever known. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">But stating indisputable facts such as these
does not necessarily prove that we have put petroleum to the best possible of
uses over the long run. Indeed, I would argue that we have squandered it, and
in the case of the personalised automobile, we have over-invested in a
fundamentally flawed living arrangement with a dubious future.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">In his argument, Jean-Francois Minardi
states that car-use accounts for “only” 43% of the petroleum pie, making the
number seem small, as though it were a democratic vote. This rhetorical trick
fails to acknowledge that this is by far the lion’s share of petroleum
allocation, with at least another 30% dedicated to fuels that also go toward
transportation (namely diesel and jet fuel). </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">See: <a href="http://www.ems.psu.edu/~pisupati/ACSOutreach/Petroleum_2.html">http://www.ems.psu.edu/~pisupati/ACSOutreach/Petroleum_2.html</a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">Or: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_product">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_product</a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">So, yes, the Personal Automobile has a lot
to answer to. We may well value the benefits and convenience of cars, but we
must learn to weigh them against the well documented drawbacks, starting with
pollution and GHG emissions, and including the dissolution of urban community
and the physical dangers that cars pose to people. Furthermore, while cars may
well indeed be useful, in the context of a finite resource (which petroleum is),
their misuse and overuse may well be a mistake of historic import.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">When you stop to consider the context in
which we debate things like the tar sands, and “fracking”, as well as pipelines
and the price at the pump, you might like to take in a few salient facts: We
have already used over half of the known petroleum reserves in the Earth’s
crust; what we’ve consumed to date has been the “low hanging fruit” and what
remains represents the harder to reach stuff (i.e. the more expensive oil).
What’s more, we are hooked on the notion of growing the economy year after
year, always using more energy to do so. We are therefore committed to
extracting more and more resources, at a greater and greater cost for a growing
economy of a growing population. We may like to appreciate the benefits of
petroleum, but we may well need to get our heads around the basic principles of
sustainability first.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">I have to admit, I do not know who
Jean-Francois Minardi is, but I recognise his basic argument common to
“cornucopian” economists, that states “since petroleum has delivered us what we
like, we must therefore deserve more petroleum; and since we deserve it, we
therefore will inevitably, rightly do what is necessary to ensure its
availability.” It’s a line of reasoning that assumes that Nature is obliged to
provide for us whatever our hearts desire. Minardi goes on to introduce a
particularly emotionally charged example of hard working women in Africa, who now benefit from the use of plastic jugs when
hauling water. Since I too benefit from various forms of plastic (as much as I
do try to avoid the stuff) I would be hypocritical to decry this benefit.
However, it is not a sound argument to point only to one feel-good story while
ignoring countless examples of the downside of plastic as a pollutant in the
biosphere – the tons of floating debris in the oceans comes to mind, as the
most glaring example… At least the clay pots traditionally used by the African
women in the example are biodegradable.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">But the issue isn’t about any one
particular example. Of course there is a narrative of progress that we can
attach to petroleum. There is also the narrative of dehumanisation and destruction.
Take your pick. The real issue with this natural resource is that Nature has
the final say. Whether we want there to be endless supplies of petroleum or
not, we will inevitably be faced with reduced access though rising prices, and
eventually with global scarcity. This fact is so far off the radar of the
mainstream media that you have to wade deep into the marshes of the blogosphere
to get a good overview of this situation, while running the risk of being
bogged down by some very twisted and dubious interpretations of the facts as
well. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">For my part, I mention scarcity not as a
scare tactic, or part of a conspiracy theory, but because, if we could start to
get our heads around it, we could seriously consider the importance of reducing
that 43% to something like half or less, along with the other consumptive
habits we developed in a culture of abundance and entitlement which is entering
the its twilight phase.<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">As regular readers know, I am an avid cyclist. But I do use a car
from time to time. I will not ever own one, and I may one day own as many as
five bikes, so it’s no secret where my biases lie. I have made my choices, and
I live by them as best I can. I happen to be well aware that the tires on my
bike are derived from petroleum. The entire existence of a “cycling industry”
is surely, wholly dependent on the stuff, I know. But there is no way to
justify the comparison of this dependence to the dependence of car culture on
the same resource when you look at the basic rates of overall consumption. Just
because petroleum delivers us some valuable goods, it should not be assumed
that cars, and the extravagance they represent, are beyond all criticism.</span></div>
Kyoto Motorshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09722522804036548328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9128461431848916512.post-13547353677355289702013-08-29T09:36:00.000-04:002013-08-29T09:36:39.432-04:00Remember This!<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><img src="//img2.blogblog.com/img/video_object.png" style="background-color: #b2b2b2; " class="BLOGGER-object-element tr_noresize tr_placeholder" id="ieooui" data-original-id="ieooui" />
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-CA">[KyotoMotors Blog
Post #11]</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-CA"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-CA">We hear a lot of
promises in our lifetimes. It’s the nature of<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>marketing, and the nature of politics, and – if you want to get down to
it – it’s the nature of our faith in Progress that we believe a good many of them,
even when we should know better.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-CA">When I was young,
the year 2000 loomed large, and everything was going to be about space travel
and robots. If you’re older than me, maybe you expected heli-ports and rocket
packs in this future that has since passed. Of course, what we got was nothing
of the sort – not even a good old fashioned apocalypse branded as “Y2K”.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-CA">To be fair, we do
have the internet, and hand-held devices that would shame the best technicians
aboard the original Starship Enterprise. So we’re pretty good at
telecommunications and data storage that run on an infrastructure of satellites and
rare earth elements. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-CA">What we also have
is a host of unforeseen consequences converging to form the mother of all
predicaments for the current incarnation of civilisation. Atop the list is
probably climate change caused by industrial activity and several resultant
positive feed-back loops that accelerate the phenomenon, such as shrinking
polar ice mass, and methane-released by melting permafrost. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-CA">Another global problem
surrounds energy, and the challenge of accessing enough of it to maintain
normal operations for the global economy (including the operation of the
internet and those hand-held devices, not to mention our beloved automobiles).
That we face increasingly dire challenges to maintain the levels of energy that
we have grown accustomed to, is not commonly spoken about in polite society.
Instead, at all costs, we tend to look to the art of promise, and the faith in
technological progress in order to convince ourselves that this challenge
simply isn’t – simply must not be – true. Why, just recently I’ve been reading
about a new era of energy independence dawning in America. Fracking, it seems, has
come to answer our energy prayers, so that we can all continue to enjoy 20<sup>th</sup>
century levels of extravagance and specialisation that defines our
civilisation. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-CA">Such promises!</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-CA">Well, don’t shoot
the messenger, but have I got news for you: Some serious questions have arisen
surrounding the validity of the hype. Fracking, it would seem, may not be all
it’s cracked up to be. It may rather be yet another in the string of dubious
promises we conjure up for mass consumption while avoiding the hard questions
pertaining to the hard limits to growth set by Nature herself. Worse still, the
whole shale oil bonanza may well prove to be the latest in a string of economic
bubbles that characterise our troubled economy.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-CA">I’m not making
this stuff up, so don’t credit me with the foresight… There are a number of
commentators who seem to have connected the dots, and now there’s a concise
book written on the subject: </span><i>Snake Oil: How Fracking's False Promise of Plenty Imperils Our Future </i><span lang="EN-CA">by Richard Heinberg. [<a href="http://www.resilience.org/resource-detail/1789950-snake-oil-how-fracking-s-false-promise" target="_blank">http://www.resilience.org/resource-detail/1789950-snake-oil-how-fracking-s-false-promise ]</a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-CA"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-CA">It appears the
fracking industry is following the familiar pattern of a classic economic
bubble, which like a pyramid scheme, leaves most investors in the lurch with a
sense of having been duped out of however much money they were hyped into
investing. Like the recent
housing bubble, a bubble in fracking would be closely tied to our troubling
insistence on furthering the consumptive patterns of car-oriented living
arrangements and expectations (entitlement). Like the housing bubble, the
fracking instalment of this tragi-farce will be shrouded in layers of denial
and hand-waving-insistence that such a thing is impossible -- It is somehow
always “different this time”-- until, of course, the whole thing has burst.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-CA">For me, what is
different this time, is that I am comfortably in the camp that sees it coming,
and will do the only thing I can do about it, and that’s to call it as I see
it. There’s nothing that can be done to stop it from happening – this sucker
will go down – but there is at least the possibility of keeping your money
safely away from unsound fracking investments. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-CA">After it does go
down (within a year or two) think back to this blog and remember that checking
in to Kyotomotors wasn’t such a bad idea! You may also want to get to know the
issues a little more closely by visiting sites like the Post Carbon Institute’s
<a href="http://www.resilience.org/">www.resilience.org</a> , which serves as a
hub for lots of great info on alternatives worth pursuing…</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-CA">Meanwhile, as the summer fades, and autumn sneaks in a little closer every morning, I will make every effort to resume regular posts here at kyotomotors. I will start by asking , what is a "kyoto motor" and offer a number of ways of answering </span><span lang="EN-CA">the question next week. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-CA"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-CA">Please stay tuned.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
Kyoto Motorshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09722522804036548328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9128461431848916512.post-10456933112542129992013-03-28T23:31:00.001-04:002013-03-28T23:31:59.270-04:00Too Low? Too High?<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><img src="//img2.blogblog.com/img/video_object.png" style="background-color: #b2b2b2; " class="BLOGGER-object-element tr_noresize tr_placeholder" id="ieooui" data-original-id="ieooui" />
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">When I heard on the radio that Newfoundland and Labrador
(NL) is proceeding with austerity measures, I wasn’t particularly shoc</span><span lang="EN-CA"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></span><span lang="EN-CA">ked,
since it seemed to ring true with much of what’s going on these days. But when
the same radio story reminded me that NL had been anticipating great new
prosperity thanks to its untapped offshore oil reserves, I paid a little closer
attention. When finally it was explained that NL could not further pursue said
prosperity because oil prices just aren’t high enough, I had to check to see if
my ears were clogged. </span></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">It has been a while since I’ve heard the
opinion that oil prices aren’t high enough – in fact, I’ve never heard that
opinion in the mainstream media (MSM) before: it’s usually coming from the
perspective of those who believe we should drastically reduce our consumption
and, to the best of our abilities, leave the black stuff in the ground.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">Of course the conventional wisdom is that
in NL’s case, things would be so much better if only we could unlock the
treasure trove of black gold in their back yard. But alas, the price of oil, at
$95.00 per barrel does not make for profitable offshore operations. So
projected growth has been shelved and the job cuts have already begun – not to
mention the great many jobs that simply will not materialize down the road.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">This story has peak oil written all over
it.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">As it happens, the enthusiastic economic
projections that NL had been anticipating were based on predictions that the
price of oil would have ratcheted up to about $125.00 per barrel by now. Back
in 2007, when the price of oil spiked to $147.00, and all sorts of hell was
breaking loose on the financial and economic stage of the world, a believable
case was being made for such predictions: almost overnight, the unthinkable had
become entirely plausible. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">However, partly as a result of the general
turmoil, and partly because of the spike itself (which was a bit of a
speculative run, at least in part) a new economic phenomenon emerged. What is
now generally accepted as “demand destruction.” It appears as though high oil
prices have such a “wet blanket” effect on the economy, that there is
effectively a ceiling against which the price bounces quite hard. So while some
peak-oilers were predicting $200 to $300 per barrel in short order, it seems
more realistic to expect the price to bounce between the recession-caused
ceiling, and the more familiar supply shortfall that is pushing the price ever
upward. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">In other words, while the global economy
servicing a population of 7 billion people tries to expand, but has trouble
finding enough light sweet crude to do so, it resorts to more costly efforts
such as tar sands, shale oil, and off-shore operations. However, with rising
prices associated with these costs, the average citizen has less incentive to
consume, effecting a recessionary influence.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">This may well explain why the price of oil
seems to dip occasionally, and rises to about $100.00 per barrel, without ever
spiking to the record highs. Interestingly, the new lows which were around
$60.00 a barrel are at least double what was considered high a mere decade ago.
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">And yet in NL (and elsewhere, I expect)
even at $100 per barrel, offshore oil operations just aren’t profitable enough!
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">So the fanfare, which was considerable just
a few short years ago, trumpeting NL’s future as an economic engine has faded
away. It’s one more economic stumbling block for a province that has had its
fair share over the decades. But it’s a trend that is becoming familiar in the
energy industry all over the place. Welcome to the era of diminishing returns.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">Similar hype and fanfare is currently being
aired over the shale oil and shale gas phenomenon. The political leaders
looking to make some quick “hay” along with their stenographers in the MSM are
giddy about a new era of US
energy independence. More scrutinizing analysts have identified the story for
what it is: the next economic bubble to hit the already faltering economy (wait
for it!... ).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">Meanwhile, in Canada, we are experiencing a more
protracted period of hype in the form of government propaganda (under the
banner of “the economic action plan”). This is a veiled effort to convince the
nation to support the government’s efforts to drive our economy on tar sands
extraction. The tar sands story is also another chapter in the story of peak
oil: it is dependent upon high prices that are caused by the depletion and
exhaustion of conventional oilfields. But, as mentioned, the effect of “demand
destruction” puts a ceiling on those prices. What’s more, when demand is being
“destroyed” it’s because of recession – usually characterised by high
unemployment. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">In other words, the so-called good news of
tar sands viability is dependent on the bad news of high oil prices which in
turn invites recessionary trends.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">So beware the fanfare Canada. The
government may be claiming that tar sands can solve our economic woes (even if our
energy predicament goes un-addressed), but there are a number of facts that go
unstated, and a few assumptions that may not stand up to the test of time.
Investing in this resource full tilt, as we have been doing may simply prove to
be a case of over-reach, where we make commitments to a way of doing business
that hasn’t got legs.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">The facts are that tar-sands extraction is
ridiculously costly, especially in terms of energy returned on energy invested
(EROEI). So as the price of oil goes up (purportedly a good thing, remember?)
the cost of extraction goes up along with it, keeping the margin of profit much
closer to the ground than with conventional sources of oil. And of course the
big assumption here is the lesson coming out of NL: the price of oil may simply
not go where we want it to in a timely manner. And if it does, tar sands oil
will surely keep it there.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">Peak oil is indeed a real phenomenon that
we all have to get used to. But it is easily misunderstood, and often
mis-represented. Grappling with the implications peak oil has on the economy is
serious business. Assuming that the rules have not changed is the first most
common mistake made by economists. But this is another topic.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">The best economic advice I can think of is
to do a collective energy “gut check” and pare down our collective energy diet.
Comprehensive energy conservation is the only way that we can guarantee that
the availability of energy (for when we really need it) will manifest itself in
lower prices. The first step though is to become energy-literate, and try to
understand that when it comes to energy, we are like heavy drinkers on a wild
binge, throwing caution to the wind…</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Kyoto Motorshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09722522804036548328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9128461431848916512.post-50619041968449955552012-11-23T22:47:00.000-05:002012-11-23T22:47:15.222-05:00Speaking of Tar Sands…<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><img src="//img2.blogblog.com/img/video_object.png" style="background-color: #b2b2b2; " class="BLOGGER-object-element tr_noresize tr_placeholder" id="ieooui" data-original-id="ieooui" />
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">The Canadian premiers are in the news today, thanks to their
“economic summit” in Halifax
this week. One of the main stories that has emerged highlights the importance
of energy policy between the provinces and across the nation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The leaders expressed a general sense of
optimism about sharing the pie that is “Alberta’s
oil.” The news media appear willing to jump on that bandwagon as well. The
summit’s newsworthiness, such as it may be, pales in contrast to the story that
is not being told. As regular readers may have guessed already, the real story
I’m referring to is that dual fossil-fuel story about climate change and peak
oil. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">Indeed the optimism may be a thin veneer: if the leaders of Canada’s provinces and the head of the bank of Canada
know anything, they should know about this real story as well. For one thing
they should know better than to pretend that it’s “oil” they’re talking about.
Same goes for the journalists asking the questions. Everybody knows that when
talking of future energy exports coming out of Alberta, it’s the tar sands that are the
source. And as <span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.resilience.org/author-detail/1150847-andrew-nikiforuk">Andrew
Nikifouruk</a></span> – among others – rightfully points out, the stuff ain’t
oil. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">There are at least three major areas of concern surrounding the tar
sands that cannot be ignored. One is that the only reason we are talking about
the resource’s viability is because of the repercussions of global peak oil and
the $80 + price of a barrel of crude. In turn, investors are vulnerable to a
price collapse, which would throw a wet blanket on the whole show. The second
is that as the Kyoto Protocol limps away to hide in a crawl-space of history,
the tar sands represents everything that industrial society should be working
to avoid, in order to avert climate disaster. Lastly, returning to the point
that “it ain’t oil,” the tar sands development puts an enormous strain on the
biosphere, particularly with respect to water, both upstream and downstream of production:
competing with other users for processing, and contaminating the Athabasca
watershed on a monumental scale. A fourth point could be added as well, which
is that the tar sands puts an incredible strain on the industry itself, which
must consume astounding amounts of energy to unlock this resource (more on this
below). </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">Under our present leadership here in Canada, we will apparently ignore
this information, and strive for progress the one way we know how: that vaunted
intangible economic growth. In our case this growth is being conjured out of
sand: that dubious natural endowment that I will always refer to as the tar
sands. The industrial development surrounding the tar sands is in the realm of stupendous
in scale – a force to be reckoned with. If you catch the propaganda about it,
you’ll hear that this is good old fashioned economic development and job
creation (a topic I’ll have to save for another post). With energy trade deals
and pipelines pending, this resource is being pedalled as our ticket to freedom
and prosperity. The thing is, like a lot of “growth” nowadays, the tar sands
just ain’t what it’s stacked up to be – one way or another somebody really has
to pay for it – through the nose. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">You might say, wait a minute, it’s us Canadians who are reaping the
benefits as exporters here: other countries will be paying. But that’s only
part of the picture. In a predictable manner, following the script of classical
economics, the downside of the development as a whole is externalised in at
least two significant ways. As mentioned above, one is with respect to carbon
emissions, the other pertains to water use and freshwater contamination. These
“externalities” represent costs paid by people outside of the development, like
first nations people downstream from production, as well as by future
generations who will live through the consequences of unregulated carbon
emissions and the depletion of underground aquifers. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">For anyone familiar with the criticism of the tar sands this is not ground-breaking
news, earth-shattering as it may be. For others it seems this kind of
information has no effect. Perhaps they are truly dazzled by the big numbers
attached to the tar sands deposit: “so many hundreds of billions of barrels of
oil, and blah blah blah…” </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">One thing I have learned about this resource having read a fair bit,
is that although you can talk in terms of hundreds of billions of barrels, when
it comes down to it, the rate of extraction will only ever be a tiny fraction
of the total. Tar sands doesn’t flow like crude oil, for obvious reasons, so
even the most ambitious forecasts talk of maybe 5 million barrels of synthetic
crude a day – a rate that is still many years away, by the way – is probably
about where it will max out. How sustainable that output will be in the long
run is yet another question. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">Now I admit, 5 million barrels of oil is nothing to sneeze at. If we
Canadians wanted to become energy independent we could try to distribute the
resource from coast to coast and achieve this goal (albeit at considerable
expense). This seems to be what many of the premiers have in mind. Please note
however this is not what I consider a desirable alternative worth pursuing
(again, this will have to wait for a future post). </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">Perhaps the most significant thing I have learned about the tar
sands, which consistently passes under the radar of the news media, is that
while development is justified economically now, on the grounds that $80/barrel
prices allow developers and investors to turn a profit, the resource is fundamentally
expensive in energy terms – beyond the question of money, which is just an
abstract set of values. When measured in terms of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">net energy</i>, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(or Energy
return on energy invested – <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested">EROEI</a>)
since you must necessarily burn fuel in order to extract it, tar sands will
never really be the same as crude oil, despite the propaganda and fanfare. Net
energy is an important way of assessing all energy sources: How much energy do
you have to exert to reap the surpluses you are seeking from a given resource?
For the tar sands, the energy returned on energy invested is a pitiful ratio optimistically
somewhere around <a href="http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-10-28/two-more-ethical-challenges-canadas-oil-sands">7:1
for extraction and drops to 3:1 after it has been upgraded and refined into
something useful such as gasoline</a>. How does this compare to other sources?
Consider that at one time light sweet crude offered up an energy pay-off of
about <a href="http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8625">100 to one</a>. These
numbers, if you choose not to ignore them, underscore just how different our
current energy situation is in relation to the good ol’ days. This is the
unfolding story of peak oil: the narrative of our times…</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">The obvious question about the promised future of Canadian tar sands
development (remember that 5 million barrel/ day target?) is what is the net
worth of that 5 million barrels when you’ve exhausted something like the
equivalent of 3 million barrels just to process the stuff? </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">Current tar sands policy represents a fantasy that the poor choices
we made in the past can be corrected by making even poorer ones today. Those
poor choices involved buying in to the individually owned car/ consumer model
for business as usual, including suburbanisation of cities and rampant
disregard for the limits of an inherently finite resource (oil), and even more
finite biosphere (which may not be able to absorb all the carbon contained in
the remaining crude oil deposit). It all probably seemed like a very good idea
at the time, I’m sure, but we should know by now that this business model is
unsustainable. Tar sands development (itself environmentally risky) is an
attempt at sustaining the unsustainable. Personally I’d like to vote for a
different plan, sooner than later.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">If these views strike you as extreme, please convince me that I am
mistaken. Certainly critics of peak oil commentators have done an unconvincing
job so far. Take <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/11/05/peak-oil-and-eroei-still-nonsense/">Tim
Worstall’s argument</a> as one example of many. (The man appears to be utterly
incapable of piecing together a rational argument). If I am not mistaken, and
if these points I bring up remain marginalised as they are now, and we continue
to ignore the major crises that science have already identified, we will one
day fail as a society. Eventually, perhaps without ever noticing when the
failure occurred, the cause for failure will become more and more apparent in
retrospect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Maybe we’ll finally get past
the phony debates on climate change, peak oil and the economic downturn, roll
up our sleeves and deal with our shit. Hopefully by then we won’t find ourselves
too far past the crossroads of change, having rolled deep into the mud of the
new era that began while we weren’t looking. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">Above hyperlinks are the following:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA"><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/11/05/peak-oil-and-eroei-still-nonsense/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/11/05/peak-oil-and-eroei-still-nonsense/</a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested</a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA"><a href="http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-10-28/two-more-ethical-challenges-canadas-oil-sands">http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-10-28/two-more-ethical-challenges-canadas-oil-sands</a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA"><a href="http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8625">http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8625</a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA"><a href="http://www.resilience.org/author-detail/1150847-andrew-nikiforuk">http://www.resilience.org/author-detail/1150847-andrew-nikiforuk</a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Kyoto Motorshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09722522804036548328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9128461431848916512.post-1945205549514180152012-11-12T22:44:00.000-05:002012-11-12T22:44:17.817-05:00So What is Kyoto Motors, Anyway?<div style="text-align: justify;">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><img src="//img2.blogblog.com/img/video_object.png" style="background-color: #b2b2b2; " class="BLOGGER-object-element tr_noresize tr_placeholder" id="ieooui" data-original-id="ieooui" />
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">I have gone on at some length recently about
the price of gasoline, and why we all may need to examine the issue a bit more
closely. In turn, I seem to have established the idea that KyotoMotors is not a
“boycott Big Oil” project. There are a number of other things that Kyoto Motors
is not. It’s not a commercial auto-makers website, for example (though it has
fooled some, in its previous incarnation). Nor is it a think tank for the
climate-change denial industries of big oil and the auto industry (obviously).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">So what then is Kyoto Motors? </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">The short answer is that, like the
international protocol from whence the name was derived, Kyoto Motors is an
utter failure. Originally conceived as an artistic project composed of two main
branches of activity, Kyoto Motors exists today at best as the shell of its
former self. Worse, it is a project that never quite came into being:
artistically my biggest flop.</span><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size: 11.0pt;">(For more on the
history of the Kyoto Motors project, see the link in the <a href="http://kyotomotorsfailure.blogspot.ca/"><span style="color: windowtext;">sidebar</span></a>
to the right).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">But there is a silver lining. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">I may have driven the original project into
the ground, but the attempted collaboration did initiate dialogue with
unexpected peers and eventually a new collaborative project emerged. What
started off as a handful of neighbourhood activists calling themselves Car Free
Mile End, has evolved into a full-fledged non-profit organisation known as Rue
Publique. Based in Montreal,
this ecologically-minded group has a host of ambitions aimed at the improvement
of the quality of life in their corner of the world. One of the main areas of
focus is the promotion of and advocacy for the transportation alternatives to
the personally owned automobile. These alternatives, in my mind represent the
future of transportation in the emerging economy: By necessity society will have
to make the shift to accommodate these alternatives. And although RuePublique
has no associations or anything to do with Kyoto Motors whatsoever, I can say
that my artistic flop helped in some way to get the ball rolling with regard to
this excellent project, that truly has taken on a life of its own.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">When Kyoto Motors was downgraded from
full-fledged website to mere blog, I had in the back of my mind the idea of
answering a couple of basic questions: what should a car company of the future
look like? How can the automotive industry address the principles of
sustainability and serve the interests of the biosphere?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">Now, after so much time, it’s clear that
too many car companies pretend to have taken care of answering these questions
already. But the answers are never as easy, or as snappy, as the trendy
commercials would have us believe. It turns out that an environmentally
friendly automobile is an oxymoron; an ecological fallacy. And if a sustainable
automotive industry is basically an impossibility, it is in large part because a
business model predicated on the single owner/ driver principle has no place in
a progressive, ecologically-minded vision of the future. It may not even have a
viable future period – no matter what we think we’re “achieving” economically.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">Meanwhile, the notion that Kyoto Motors might
examine an alternative path for the auto sector, in my mind, has to be combined
with alternatives <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><u>to</u></i> the auto
sector. Rather than focusing on alternative vehicles, I’m more inclined to
explore the idea of getting around without one, individually or collectively. Therefore,
Kyoto Motors has become synonymous to me for everything to do with bicycles and
walking as well as public transit. It really has nothing to do with “buying a
car” whatsoever, but rather explores the reality of making do without one at
all costs: the real Kyoto “motor” may well be your pair of legs, combined with
the machinery and infrastructure of transportation systems and services. With
Kyoto Motors I aspire to present a stream of thoughts and ideas that help to
shape a meaningful response to global climate change.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">It’s worth reminding ourselves from time to
time the monumental importance of this challenge before us. Recent articles
I’ve come across there have underscored the extent to which global warming (and
peak oil) are following some of the worst-case scenarios that forecasters
imagined only a short while ago. These matters receive woefully little coverage
in the mainstream press and political discourse, so if we’re even going to
remember that there’s something there worth thinking about, some other avenues
have to be pursued.*</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>I
know that it’s easy, in the day-to-day business of life, to engage in countless
activities that have no apparent immediate relation to this problem. These
things require no especial awareness of the situation, and probably run
smoother if no one brings it up. Welcome to the status quo. One effect of this
is that the issue itself fades away, and becomes unreal, so long as the
immediacy of the here and now keeps our attention away from the crisis. But
just because we get out of the habit of thinking about global warming does not
mean that the planet has begun to cool.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">It’s a challenge to compete with the
ideologies that would have us all pretend or otherwise believe that there is no
global climate challenge caused by man-made industry. After all, industrial
economic activity is spurred by marketing, itself an a global, hyper-charged
and sophisticated industry bent on persuading you to do all those things that
the “invisible hand” might fail to.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
publicity and the spectacle of it all has insinuated itself into the
contemporary mindscape about as thoroughly and completely as petroleum has
worked its magic on the built environment and the physical economy of goods and
services.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">The cultural momentum is so enormous.
Practically everywhere you turn, leaders and followers in every sector are busy
not addressing climate change while they prop up their little corner of the
system that engages them. It’s why I say that climate change is “baked-in”
since it represents the logical outcome of the economic activity that we are
all committed to. It is the rare exception to hear through the din of the
status quo a voice from someone outlining the gravity of the situation. They
exist, to be sure. Their message is often level-headed and clear, if also
passionate and urgent. But where are the resources that would have this kind of
message disseminated to the masses on a scale to rival the constant stream of
commercial marketing? </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">At best Kyoto Motors has done well to satirize the kind of marketing that weaves an ideological fabric around our
minds, but can only really be one voice striving to cut through this impediment. I
hope that it’s a place where you will find meaningful discourse that may be
worth sharing. Expanding the dialogue through every means possible is clearly
an important process to promote. Who knows what positive changes may come as a
result?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">__________________________________________________________________ </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="EN-CA">*One resource I
have repeatedly referred my readers to is the Energy Bulletin, originally
hosted by the Post Carbon Institute – a think-tank based in Santa Rosa, California.
It appears that the PCI has restructured their web site, and will be
channelling the same material at a new website they call Resilience.org<span> </span><a href="http://www.resilience.org/stories-list/79716-energy">http://www.resilience.org/stories-list/79716-energy</a>
. I recommend you check it out.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="EN-CA"><a href="http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2012-11-02/rapid-and-deep-emissions-reductions-may-not-be-easy-but-4-c-to-6-c-will-be-much-worse">http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2012-11-02/rapid-and-deep-emissions-reductions-may-not-be-easy-but-4-c-to-6-c-will-be-much-worse</a>
</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="EN-CA"><a href="http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2012-11-04/burning-picassos-for-heat-why-we-need-to-electrify-transportation">http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2012-11-04/burning-picassos-for-heat-why-we-need-to-electrify-transportation</a>
</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="EN-CA"><a href="http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2012-11-01/avoiding-defeatism-on-climate-change">http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2012-11-01/avoiding-defeatism-on-climate-change</a></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="EN-CA"><a href="http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2012-11-05/we-cannot-avoid-the-global-crisis-but-we-can-deal-with-it">http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2012-11-05/we-cannot-avoid-the-global-crisis-but-we-can-deal-with-it</a></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="EN-CA"><a href="http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2012-10-31/the-peak-oil-crisis-the-superstorm">http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2012-10-31/the-peak-oil-crisis-the-superstorm</a></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Kyoto Motorshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09722522804036548328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9128461431848916512.post-8863740909517921142012-10-28T21:30:00.000-04:002012-10-28T21:30:50.990-04:00My Own Personal Boycott<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">After having written the last couple of entries here at Kyoto Motors,
you may have guessed that I am not about to instigate or otherwise attempt to
orchestrate a global boycott of the fossil fuel industry. Don’t get me wrong, I
wholeheartedly endorse the idea, but I know a Quixotic challenge when I see
one. And so, I stay away from the fight on the grounds that it would be
untenable in its scale, and ineffectual in its inability to charm and woo – boycotting
Big Oil just ain’t sexy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this culture
of abundance and entitlement, people want to tackle climate change without
sacrifice, so a boycott is essentially a losing proposition. Instead, I prefer
to focus my attention on local projects of ecological merit in their own right.
In turn, the more I get involved in these, I find myself adhering to my own
personal boycott of big oil all the same.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">As it turns out, the boycott may not be sexy but it certainly has
its benefits. Not owning a car, for example, is nothing but pleasure, and a
sheer economic boon, to boot. I do not have to live in a cabin in the woods,
and while most everything in my life has been touched in some way by fossil
fuels, but I do not directly pay for gasoline on a typical day, and there is
frankly, a great sense of satisfaction in that.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">But this personal boycott is not intended as self gratification. It
is rather just a by-product of abiding by convictions that stem from taking a
serious look at the challenges of climate change and peak oil. While the global
industrial debacle plays itself out, I have made a conscious attempt at attaining
a more-than average degree of self-sufficiency, and resilience. The less
complex the systems and technology I engage with, the more readily accessible
the solutions when those systems and technologies fail, which they invariably
do. This principle, which is my understanding of “appropriate technology” (by
no means an exhaustive one, but…), often tends to be interpreted as an
anticipation of an apocalyptic down-turn. To the contrary, it is rather, simply
an understanding that downturns and failures can happen, big or small, at any
time. It is the realisation that self-empowerment and community as opposed to
dependence on faceless corporate global systems (such as supply chains), and deliberately
overly-complex technologies, represents a refreshing kind of freedom.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">Mind you, that’s about as sexy as the boycott gets. Unfortunately, as
easy as it is to get to the boycott, from there (as you might have guessed) it
usually involves a lot of work. Indeed, the boycott leads you away from the
lifestyle fantasies that you see in television commercials and magazine
adverts. The boycott will take you off the conveyor belt aisle of Big Box Stores.
The boycott will lift you out of the Parking Lot Freeway. The boycott will
steer you away from the Tropical
Airport get-away. And the
Boycott it will plop you down in the middle of a crowded bus, hanging on to a
strap sometimes for dear life; or onto a bicycle in the rain, at times pedalling
uphill against the wind; or into a back-yard garden, hands covered in earth,
with wafts of compost filling your nose. No sir, the boycott is definitely
lacking in sex appeal, and so it’s a tough sell to the masses hopped up on
instant this and throw-away that. People would rather believe that there must
be another way. Perhaps we could keep our beautifully decorated cake, and stuff
our little faces with it at the same time?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">The popular justification for doing nothing on a personal level
(apart from simply not wanting to sacrifice anything) is that there are
solutions (there must be!) waiting in the wings in the form of alternatives to
the internal combustion engine. Hydrogen fuel cells, electric plug-in hybrid
cars, high-speed rail, carbon capture and storage, wind power, and solar, etc.
etc. These possibilities, promises, and fantasies are varied both in their
practical applications and more importantly, in their “sex” appeal. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I personally have been excited about all of
the above and more, to varying degrees at one time or another. Some of them
like wind power are clearly proven, effective pieces of the puzzle we have to
put into practice (but of course the NIMBY effect proves that not even the
“best” alternatives are free of drawbacks). Nonetheless, the reasoning continues,
there will come a time when the invisible hand of the market will usher in
these alternatives seamlessly and painlessly. Perhaps all we need to do is
elect the right government into power, perhaps it is just a matter of time…</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">But of course the real world chugs along quite differently, and we
change our narratives as we go, for them to match reality. Does anyone remember
to what extent, for example, that the hydrogen economy was touted in the first
years of G.W. Bush’s presidency? Projections, predictions and promises were
made: the future was bright, and the horizon was but ten years away…And, well,
not much of it came to pass at all – we’re not even a tenth of the way there. I
don’t know a single person who owns a fuel cell car, and it is highly curious (to
say the least) that more than a decade later there is less and less talk about
this technological dream. The same thing can, should, or will soon be said for
a host of other technological fantasies, and it is high time that we connect
the dots. Such fantasies, from cold fusion to algae-derived bio-diesel to
shale-oil and gas to perpetual motion machines, are all fantasies that we use
to project our narrative of progress onto, because (the assumptions dictate) we
have to come up with something, because we always believed we would. But what
if it just isn’t in the bag? Is it not possible that the discovery and
leveraging of fossil fuels was a one-time-only historical anomaly? …An
exceptional period in the history of human endeavour?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">If so (which, obviously I believe to be the case), there is good
reason to expect little from a change in government. In the face of eventual
energy shortages, policy can only do so much, if your promise is to sustain the
unsustainable arrangements based on the fossil-fuel economy (the only economy
politicians seem to know). Coming to terms with the economic implications of a
pending energy predicament would be a start, but (returning to the theme of sex
appeal) it’s hard to find a politician this side of Andromeda that would broach
the subject in public. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">Politics has almost by definition, become joined at the hip of the
industrial global economy. As I have pointed out before, so many facets,
aspects and habits in the modern world are shaped by petroleum that we can’t
really conceive of altering that reality until it somehow needs to change
itself. And so, despite the dual predicament of climate change and peak oil and
all the associated problems, we have inherited a political system itself a
product of the petroleum age, and therefore at the service of the petroleum
economy.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">Having said that, it is not impossible (using history as a guide) to
imagine a political figure emerging from the current stagnating waters of the
status quo, who manages to conjure up the moral imperative to proceed
differently as a society. The likelihood of this being a future United States
presidential candidate may be slim, but these personalities may already be
active on a number of more local political arenas, serving local communities
(as would be appropriate).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">I happen to feel that climate change represents such an urgent challenge
that I feel I must adjust my behaviour in response to it, particularly because
it appears that waiting for governments to take decisive action is never going
to be enough to avert the crisis. Similarly, it seems probable that no measure
of political or popular organisation (like a boycott) is going to be up to the
task, sad as this may be.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">If it sounds to you that I’m resigned to the fact that quite
probably catastrophe is already mixed into the batter, and the cake is in the
oven, well I am. But it is precisely because we have collectively backed
ourselves into the cul-de-sac of climate change and peak oil that my own
reduced dependence on petroleum, complex technology and the systems that
support it, may well translate into competitive advantage in the years ahead. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And so a measured, albeit partial, personal
boycott strikes me as the best personal response to the present moment in
history. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><img src="//img2.blogblog.com/img/video_object.png" style="background-color: #b2b2b2; " class="BLOGGER-object-element tr_noresize tr_placeholder" id="ieooui" data-original-id="ieooui" />
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->Kyoto Motorshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09722522804036548328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9128461431848916512.post-75902648248843108082012-10-06T21:23:00.000-04:002012-10-06T21:23:00.430-04:00Boycotting Big Oil<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><img src="//img2.blogblog.com/img/video_object.png" style="background-color: #b2b2b2; " class="BLOGGER-object-element tr_noresize tr_placeholder" id="ieooui" data-original-id="ieooui" />
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA"></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Attention,
well-informed citizens!</i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Coming
to grips with climate change may well be a question of putting the oil industry
in its proper place by curtailing the rate at which we consume their main
product. Who better to do that than the daily users of the stuff?</i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
It has become almost fashionable to note just
how dependent we are on petroleum. It only takes a few seconds pause to come to
realise how every last element of one’s immediate surroundings is or was in
some way shaped by the stuff. Such is the nature of the modern,
global-industrial experience. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
If this is a point we can all agree on, it’s
the conclusions that we draw from this observation that vary wildly. To some,
petroleum is nothing but a good to be revered and celebrated. To others, it
represents a source of misery, and further misery to come. To a great many in
the middle it is perhaps at best, a necessary evil, or worse an evil necessity.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
Until climate change became an issue, the
problems posed by petroleum tended to be on the “easily solved” end of the
spectrum (eliminating lead in fuel, and otherwise improving emissions based on California standards,
for example). Now, global warming casts a whole new light on the situation, to
such an extent that, so long as you are not in complete denial, our
relationship to fossil fuels is profoundly problematic. So much so that
so-called solutions from carbon taxes and off-setting payment schemes to
fuel-rationing have been proposed, and in some cases implemented with varying
success and a mixed-bag of intentions. Opponents to such measures usually point
to the economic cost of added layers of complexity, and limitations. These
detractors consistently must ignore the well-researched evidence that suggests
the cost of doing nothing to curtail global warming will be far greater, but
when it comes to feeling the immediate pinch, they have a point. Doing business
as usual requires, well, the usual arrangements, which are the ones that got us
where we are – in a pickle.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
As far as I know, almost no-one is seriously
considering a boycott of Big Oil across the board. Some perennially suggest a
boycott of Shell, because for some reason they are more evil that the rest (?);
then again, British Petroleum did a pretty good job at vying for that title with
their bungled response to the infamous Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Meanwhile,
oil from the tar sands of Alberta
has rightfully been targeted as particularly “dirty” and worthy of trade
restrictions. I would go further. Oil is oil. Once on the market, it matters
little where it came from, since it is a fungible commodity, so arguably, every
litre or gallon of gasoline pumped has a certain percentage of less desirable
oil in it. As it happens dirty oil not bought in one jurisdiction will be
bought by another to meet daily global demand. So, if we are going to do more
than pretend to be serious about tackling climate change, we’re going to have
to reduce that global demand. One effective strategy may well be a concerted
global boycott of oil. It probably sounds impossible to your average pair of
ears, but it’s an idea I would like to toss around here at Kyoto Motors for now,
to see if it might have legs.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
As mentioned in my previous post, a boycott
cannot work if the objective is merely to achieve lower prices at the pump and
a resumption of mindless economic expansion in the form of sprawl and other
forms of economic overshoot. So what can a boycott achieve?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The objective would have to be to never
return to a car-oriented economy again. This would reduce overall demand and
free-up the resource (oil is the most energy-dense resource we’ve ever stumbled
upon, after all) for more essential services that serve society at large (such
as emergency vehicles, infrastructure & maintenance, construction, public transit,
commercial transport and car-share programs, etc.). The effect of reduced
consumption on the price of oil would be consumer-friendly, and could well
stabilize the rising cost of living. The challenge would be to “stay the
course” and not to rush back to indiscriminate use of the car once prices are
low and the freeways run freely. Just think of how efficiently the transport
sector might work if there were no commuters (single drivers in single
vehicles) clogging up the system… </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
But before we get ahead of ourselves, we
should consider first, to what extent a boycott is even possible? And what
then, would it look like in practice?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
As mentioned at the outset here, petroleum
really has insinuated itself into practically every facet of our daily lives.
Unless you’re a forager living in a cabin in the woods, you and your lifestyle
are, to an overwhelming extent, a function of our principle source of energy on
this planet: oil*. The food we eat generally represents a <span style="color: black;"><a href="http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/mpg-of-a-human/">caloric
investment from fossil fuels ten times the caloric value of the food itself</a>
(an equation that in a normal ecosystem would be a losing proposition). Of
course the transportation of food, as well as all other consumer products
requires huge and constant flows of the stuff. Meanwhile, mega-systems such as
hydro-electric grids and the internet require support from machinery that runs
on petroleum, not to mention the plastics that come from petroleum products
that go into nearly every machine we make. A true boycott of Big Oil would
amount to living in that cabin in the woods, foraging, hunting and gardening…
it’s not a lifestyle I wish to put down by any stretch, after all there are
tribal societies that still know how to flourish within these kinds of
“limitations”. But I’m guessing that, most people reading this would only begin
to consider a boycott of Big Oil if they knew it didn’t translate into a
radical change of address and job description.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
So a boycott would have to be a question of
degrees; it could be as extreme as adhering to a <span style="color: black;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_100-Mile_Diet">hundred-mile</a><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"> or </b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_carbon_diet">low-carbon diet</a>,
thereby minimizing drastically the transportation that goes into ones diet. It
could amount to <a href="http://divorceyourcar.blogspot.ca/">divorcing your car</a>
as advocated by author Katie Alvord, which translates into using a recipe of
active transport, public transit and car-sharing services. Or you could be more
radical and refuse ever to step into a car again. Similarly, one might consider
never again boarding a jet plane. This radical measure, if taken up en masse
could deal a death-blow to an industry that is responsible for one of the worst
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviation">ways in
which we inject GHG into the atmosphere</a>. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
Whatever the measures, by what degree, to
boycott would be relative and subjective. One would presumably try to avoid
supporting the oil industry whenever possible, and whenever realistic. It would
depend entirely on what degree of sacrifice we are willing to make, and how
well the alternatives make up for that sacrifice. In some cases, where physical
exertion and healthier eating are involved, the benefits will surely outweigh
the downside of so many old habits…</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
I would suggest as a start, that a boycott be
defined by relinquishing one’s car, and replacing it with every possible
necessity in its place, including car-sharing as a last resort. As a step in
that direction, one could do some back of the envelope calculations to
determine their current level of use, and set a target of cutting that amount
by 50% within a year, and by another 50% the year after… But cold-turkey may be
less painful!</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
The second main element would be to cut out
air-travel. As far as the atmosphere is concerned, traveling by jet a couple of
times a year can quickly outpace a commuter’s GHG emissions due to daily car
use over the course of the same year. Here, a 50% reduction strategy as
outlined above might be relatively easy. It’s quite likely that the pleasures
of local vacationing will make up for the sense of sacrifice.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
Still, I know this is a tall order for a great
many. The pervasive sense of entitlement that is wrapped up in our mythologies about
freedom tends to involve access to all modes of transportation whenever the
fancy stikes. It’s not popular at all to consider that (so-called) freedom,
cherished and celebrated as it is, might have a downside. Seeing the world is
for sure a great and enriching experience, but at what point does meaningful
travel deteriorate into another meaningless form of consumerism? But in order
to steer clear of a very subjective analysis of the situation, let me simply
suggest that when weighed against the reality of climate change, rampant
freedom by jet plane may need a drastic re-think.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the
two strategies I am suggesting were combined as a boycott on a large scale is a
hopeful and promising thought in theory, there is at least one remaining,
significant problem facing such a plan.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
As we learned with high gasoline prices in
2007 – which had a cold blanket effect on the economy referred to as “demand
destruction” – a relatively sudden curtailment in gasoline consumption has a
recessionary effect on the economy which in turn reduces consumption. So long
as economic activity and energy consumption are bound at the hip, a boycott of
oil will always represent a threat to economic growth. And so a boycott would
almost certainly prove to be an extremely contentious issue economically and
politically speaking. Anyone who is heavily invested in the status quo, from
the political class (on the left and the right) to the corporate class and the
financial elite, would have the incentive and the means to counter such a
strategy with marketing and other propaganda so thick, that the average citizen
might begin to think that climate change has been solved by other means – I
sometimes think this describes the daze we are in at present, but I digress.
This may prove to be the tragic flaw that dooms the civilisation in the long
run: just when the ruling bodies in society are needed to take charge and
change direction, all leadership vanishes into thin air. People in power
protect their power base, and nothing more.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
I mention this because this strikes me as the
most likely outcome in the years ahead (whether or not a boycott is ever
attempted), based on the recent past. However, trying times have been known to
inspire exceptional people to rise to the occasion, so the window of
opportunity must be considered open by at least a crack.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
So what might people in leadership roles do to
help tackle climate change? Hypothetically speaking, in the event that a
boycott of big oil took root, the political class (read: governments) could help
make the boycott easier, and its economic effects less jarring by implementing
various social reforms, meaningful public works projects and fostering improved
community resilience. Obviously alternative modes of transportation (trains!
buses! bikes!) for individuals, would have to be treated as paramount.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
Just as important would be the message coming from
the top, be it Parliament Hill or the Oval Office. As we are beginning to see
with climate change as well as with peak oil, some degree of economic cost and
hard limits to perpetual economic expansion await us no matter which way we
choose to move forward – particularly if we hold on to the business-as-usual
approach. This is a political hot-potato issue that an uninformed public does
not want to hear. But since we’re well into the territory of the hypothetical,
let’s entertain the thought – after all, if ever we got to the point of a
widespread boycott of Big Oil, it would be because the electorate was finally
prepared to receive such a message.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
So while a concerted boycott of Big Oil might
cause some economic hardship, particularly in carbon-intensive sectors, it will
be important to remind ourselves that the economic contractions of peak oil and
the consequences of rampant carbon emissions are and were already underway. Since
this pain would likely be felt by a wide segment of the population, it would be
important to remind ourselves of the big picture when dealing with the initial
effects of “demand destruction.” </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Back
to reality</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
Sadly, a global boycott is the kind of “plan” contingent
upon some pretty significant presumptions and downright wishful hopes. It’s hard
to imagine getting from where we are today to a place where the truth about
energy and the economy is aired out in public discourse (for a decent start,
visit the <span style="color: black;"><a href="http://www.energybulletin.net/">Energy Bulletin</a>!). It’s
hard to imagine just how that discourse would inspire enough people for a
boycott to get underway in the first place. And it’s hard to imagine a
real-world perception of a boycott as being positive, even though the immediate
drop in carbon emissions would only be good for the planet. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt; text-align: justify;">
It’s equally hard to imagine replacing the
current petroleum-based way of doing things with some magic, technological
alternative overnight. But somehow this is precisely the fantasy that gets so
much of the air time. And this is where I plan to pick up the discussion in my
next post.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: center;">
~~ </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="EN-CA">* Okay, arguably it’s the sun: as it has been pointed out by a great
many that even crude oil is ultimately just concentrated solar power.
Similarly, wind and hydro rely on the sun, which is responsible for the
movements of air and water on the planet, but I digress…</span></span></div>
Kyoto Motorshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09722522804036548328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9128461431848916512.post-69988310412581284082012-09-26T22:06:00.000-04:002012-09-26T22:06:33.355-04:00Really? A Call to Action?<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 6pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">The current economic climate may indeed require that we respond with meaningfull action. If driving over a cliff is not an option, maybe we should think about rock-climbing...</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 6pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">I wrote <a href="http://kyotomotors.blogspot.ca/2012/09/commentary-on-gas-prices.html" target="_blank">my last post</a> in response to some radio commentary I heard on the subject of gas prices. A slew of typical complaints and predictable expressions of indignation came from each of the radio personalities on the air at the time, including the traffic reporter, the host and even the weatherman. This latter local celebrity decided to weigh in by calling for a political, grass-roots, popular revolt in response to the big “them” who conspire to oppress us and otherwise ruin our lives with price gouging at the pumps. My initial response took the form of a letter which I sent to the radio station, which I pasted here word-for word in the previous post. But I have to confess that I pulled a few punches partly in deference to diplomacy and decorum, but mainly for the sake of brevity. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 6pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">Needless to say a more elaborate rebuttal is in order, and while I intend to maintain the level of decorum befitting a blog of some repute – which is what I aspire to at Kyotomotors – I am compelled to take this preposterous call to arms down a notch or two before people start to take it too seriously. Indeed, this particular point about a democratic uprising, should be addressed more directly, given the current context of the past six months.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 6pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">From the perspective of someone who has spent considerable time understanding fossil fuels and our consumption/ dependence issues, comments like this would be largely laughable if they didn’t go so completely unchecked in the ensuing discourse. The fact that the revolutionary spirit of protest would manifest itself in such a self-centered, and lazy analysis of the situation can only be chalked up as a sorry sign of the times. This may not be obvious to the average listener, or to readers of this blog either, so I’m going to try to take the time to reflect on just how misguided this expression of protest and wished-for activism actually is.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 6pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">Let’s start by imagining the wish realised: perhaps protestors from all the suburbs around <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Montreal</st1:place></st1:city> would converge on the downtown arteries in their vehicles, possibly slowing to a stand-still bringing the city to a halt to demand lower prices! Perhaps from there they get out of their cars and march. Where do they go? The Government offices? Corporate headquarters of Shell or Esso or PetroCanada? These authorities have some power, and certainly don’t want the economy to grind to a halt. The question is then, does Big Oil move against their shareholders’ wishes and slash profits for the sake of the economy? If this seems too unlikely, let’s imagine an alternate path toward the same end: the Quebec government could nationalise Big Oil in the province (“PetroQuebec” perhaps?) and mandate that petroleum be provided to its citizens at a cut-rate a la Hugo Chavez, giving them a huge leg-up and decisive economic advantage on the world stage…From there, Quebeckers return to their happy motoring as though there was nothing wrong in the world as far a petroleum is concerned.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 6pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">There are, of course several things wrong with this picture. The biggest problem perhaps is that this story of reform hinges on the demands of consumers not of citizens. I could go on at length here about the finer details that distinguish the two, but I’d rather stick to the basics for now: Consumers are by definition self-centred entities manipulated by marketing, who, in demanding their “freedom” in the market place, end up bolstering their dependence on commodities instead. Consumers conflate entitlement privileges with rights, responsibilities and obligations. These moral distinctions separate consumer desires from true social movements.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 6pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">Another major problem is that <st1:state w:st="on">Quebec</st1:state> happens not to have any oil of its own to speak of, so the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Venezuela</st1:place></st1:country-region> analogy (even if that brand of socialism were palatable here) falls on its ass. In the game of Big Oil it’s the importers who pay, especially in the era of peak oil. Add to this the fact that a major refining facility on the <st1:placetype w:st="on">island</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename w:st="on">Montreal</st1:placename> was closed down not too long ago, and you have to accept that when it comes to the Oil Game, <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Quebec</st1:place></st1:state> is holding a bum hand.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 6pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">So the protest that was conjured in the heat of high gas prices is a doomed prospect that could never achieve the motorist’s objective. Yes, motorists could boycott Big Oil, and perhaps they would succeed in forcing gas prices down as oil companies try to get them back behind the wheel. But for many reasons I pointed out in my previous blog, high prices would quickly return so long as a return to status quo (ie.daily commuting) is the objective. This is the painful truth we are trying to avoid: high gas prices are pretty much permanent under the current living arrangements and ways of doing business. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 6pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">Meanwhile, for those who do hang on to the commuter habits and arrangements, such a protest is disingenuous because the intention to boycott is probably a ruse at best, given the insistence by so many that “they have no choice” while they line up for more expensive gas. At the end of the day, the public is resigned, and seems to be saying “nothing can be done!” and “what’s the use?! Evil prevails!” </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 6pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">But in fact something can be done. Which is to say I’m very interested in taking a closer look at boycotting the oil and gas industry…But I’ll save that for a future post.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 6pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">One final thought here:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 6pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-CA">There is a sad irony that the “call to action” would come from a celebrity weatherman, who in the age of global warming should be somewhat sensitive toward the consequences of our consumption of petroleum. Higher gas prices do indeed offer the benefit of reduced consumption. Once we start looking at it as an opportunity to address global warming on a personal scale, we’ll perhaps be able to accept this economic reality as part and parcel of our responsibility to act with the greater good in mind.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 6pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Kyoto Motorshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09722522804036548328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9128461431848916512.post-4852574604855584872012-09-13T10:19:00.000-04:002012-09-13T10:19:06.237-04:00Commentary on Gas Prices<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<span lang="EN-CA"></span> <div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-CA">It
is understandable for someone to feel the pinch, and even to complain about it,
however, a little perspective goes a long way</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">It is a popular habit among the majority of
drivers to cite rising gas prices as a source of great frustration and even
hardship. It seems to be just as popular to seek to blame some evil for this
suffering. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">Yes, it used to cost less to drive around,
and yes, for a commuter, driving probably represents a large slice of the
household economic pie.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">Yes also to the fact that Big Oil is pretty
close to evil, if you define evil as cornering a market and making stupendous
profits. But hey, didn’t we embrace capitalism once and for all back in 1989?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">I would not necessarily rule out blatant
collusion when it comes to Montreal’s unique position of having prices above
$1.50/L, however, in the big picture we are not all that unique. If I had told
you in 2003 that the price of a litre of gas was headed north of a dollar,
you’d have laughed at me along with the rest of 99% of the population. But that
was in fact what I was saying to those who might have listened, and well, most
people laughed, or just didn’t want to listen. We are all paying well above a
dollar now – from coast to coast. And the 5 to 10 cent difference at the pumps
is incidental.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">Now, it’s not as though I am psychic or
especially prescient. Nor am I an expert in petroleum geology, or economics. At
best I am an environmentally-minded citizen cum avid energy geek: I am a mere
lay-person who has taken it upon myself to look beyond the mainstream media
(and industry-guided discourse) to answer some big questions about energy
consumption and its consequences.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">What I have learned has been no less than
life-changing, in that I have come to see how incredibly and completely
dependent our modern, technological lifestyle is upon our treasured black gold.
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">I have come to learn that this resource
truly is finite, and that there is a geologically documented phenomenon known
in the industry as “peak oil.” </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">Get to know this term. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">Peak oil is complex and the interpretations
are many, including outright denial from, you guessed it, Big Oil: those who
don’t want anyone to have an incentive or need to reduce their consumption. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">What peak oil means is that at some point,
the world will no longer be able to produce as much oil as it did the previous
year, and eventually the rate of depletion becomes significant enough to affect
the economy (ie. “growth”). </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">Guess what? We seem to have entered the peak
phase, which is best described as a plateau. During this period the more
expensive methods of extraction become relatively viable: enter fracking &
tar sands. While these are touted as miraculous solutions in the media, by
industry and by governments (an extremely dubious claim, by the way), what they
amount to is a desperate society’s scraping the bottom of the barrel. When you
hear stories about these “new” sources of oil, try to remember that what you’re
really hearing is the story of peak oil.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">Similarly, when gas prices go up – and yes,
they’ll generally continue to rise – remember you are again hearing the story of
peak oil played out on the ground.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">Further reading:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA"><a href="http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2012-08-30/real-reason-behind-oil-price-rises-interview-james-hamilton">http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2012-08-30/real-reason-behind-oil-price-rises-interview-james-hamilton</a>
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">In fact, The Energy Bulletin is great hub
of different authors on the subject is:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA"><a href="http://www.energybulletin.net/">http://www.energybulletin.net/</a>
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">some of my favourites include: Richard
Heinberg, Kurt Cobb, Tom Murphy, John Michael Greer, and Dmitry Orlov, to name
a few.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">See also Kenneth Deffeyes, Colin Campbell, and
former Chief Economist at CIBC Jeff Rubin. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">There is a so-called Peak Oil online
community as well as the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO), meeting
this year in Austin Texas in November.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA"><br /></span></div>
Kyoto Motorshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09722522804036548328noreply@blogger.com0